· web viewto make this work, it was agreed that solutions must be provided that are easy to...

MITIGATION SYMPOSIUM: Towards A Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

ComprehensiveSymposium Proceedings

January 1998

In

Emergency Preparedness Protection civilleCanada Canada

Contents

CONTENTS

THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................v

FOREWORD.....................................................................................................................vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................vii

Approach.........................................................................................................................viiFindings and Resulting Action Items...............................................................................viiConclusion.....................................................................................................................viii

APPROACH.......................................................................................................................1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................1Aim of the Symposium......................................................................................................1Objectives.........................................................................................................................1Outcome of the Symposium..............................................................................................2Preparation........................................................................................................................2Working Definitions for the Symposium.............................................................................3Process for Participation....................................................................................................4

FINDINGS AND RESULTING ACTION ITEMS.............................................................6

Building Safer Communities - Sustainability Issues............................................................6Building Safer Communities - The Role of the Insurance Industry......................................7Developing Public ParticipAction......................................................................................8Encouraging Government and Industry Action...................................................................9Establishing Partnerships...................................................................................................9Presentation from FEMA, United States of America (Richard Krimm).............................10Presentation from EMA, Australia (John Salter and Jonathan Abrahams).........................10Refinement of Definitions...............................................................................................11Consolidation of Findings and Resulting Action Items......................................................12

1. Merits of a National Mitigation Strategy...................................................................122. Scope and Content for a National Mitigation Strategy.............................................. 133. Recommended Tactics that could be included in a National Mitigation Strategy/....... 134. Process for Designing a National Mitigation Strategy..............................................14

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................16

ii Contents

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - PARTICIPANTS.....................................................................................19

Participant Roles..............................................................................................................21Symposium Participants....................................................................................................21Coordinators....................................................................................................................26Facilitators.......................................................................................................................26Observers.........................................................................................................................27Recorders.........................................................................................................................27

APPENDIX B - QPIs (Questions, Problems and Issues)....................................................29

Overview.........................................................................................................................31QPI Categories.................................................................................................................31QPIs for the Mitigation Symposium..................................................................................32

APPENDIX C - SYMPOSIUM AGENDA.........................................................................35

APPENDIX D - PARTICIPANTS' BACKGROUND DOCUMENT...........................39

APPENDIX E - COLLECTION OF RESPONSES TO QPIs.......................................47

Building Safer Communities...........................................................................................49Developing Public Participaction....................................................................................89Enhancing Government And Industry Action..................................................................99Establishing Partnerships..............................................................................................131General Comments ....................................................................................................153

APPENDIX F - FINDINGS FROM THE MITIGATION SYMPOSIUM WORKINGSESSIONS............................................................................................185

Introduction...................................................................................................................187Session la: Building Safer Communities - Sustainability Issues.................................189

Focus Group 1...........................................................................................................189Focus Group 2...........................................................................................................192Focus Group 3...........................................................................................................194Focus Group 4...........................................................................................................197

Contents iii

APPENDIX F - (CONT'D)

Session lb: Building Safer Communities - Insurance Issues.........................................200Focus Group 1............................................................................................................200Focus Group 2...........................................................................................................202Focus Group 3............................................................................................................204Focus Group 4...........................................................................................................206

Session 2: Developing Public Participaction................................................................208Focus Group 1...........................................................................................................208Focus Group 2............................................................................................................210Focus Group 3............................................................................................................213Focus Group 4............................................................................................................216

Session 3: Encouraging Government & Industry Action...............................................219Focus Group 1...........................................................................................................219Focus Group 2............................................................................................................221Focus Group 3............................................................................................................223Focus Group 4............................................................................................................225

Session 4: Establishing Partnerships............................................................................228Focus Group 1............................................................................................................228Focus Group 2............................................................................................................230Focus Group 3............................................................................................................233Focus Group 4............................................................................................................236

Session 5: Recommendations for Canada's Mitigation Strategy..................................238Focus Group 1............................................................................................................238Focus Group 2............................................................................................................241Focus Group 3............................................................................................................243Focus Group 4............................................................................................................247

Comprehensive Symposium Proceedings

THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Mitigation Symposium was an exciting and challenging project. It is not often that one has the opportunity to bring together experts from across Canada, the United States and Australia to spend two days locked in discussion, debate, and consensus building.

The participants agreed to a full schedule and because of their dedication and willingness to be totally involved in all discussions, the results and recommendations will be very useful for future planning of a Canadian Strategy for Mitigation. I thank them for their dedication and appreciate the contribution they and their organizations have made to this important project.

I would like to thank the representatives from the sponsoring agencies Mike Braham and Chris Tucker from Emergency Preparedness Canada and Grant Kelly from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They were willing to risk using an unusual symposium format to focus on an important Canadian issue and to be participants in the process.

Pamela Hollington, project coordinator, and Elizabeth Zook, research manager, expertly handled the symposium coordination. Their efforts are reflected in the success of the symposium and I thank them for making the project a success.

I would also like to thank the facilitators, observers, and recorders for their contributions in monitoring, reporting, and encouraging discussion within each focus group. They were instrumental in the accuracy of the results of the symposium. The facilitators were: Mike Braham, John Oakley, Laurie Pearce and Ross Peterson. The observers were Roberto Gonzalez, Tony Heemskerk, Larry Pearce and Bill White. The recorders, who took detailed notes of all focus group discussions, were Lisa Bhopalsingh, Stephen Billington, Barbara Mugabe and Shaugn Schwartz.

Special thanks are extended to Dick Krimm of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and to Jonathan Abrahams and John Salter of Emergency Management Australia for sharing some of their insights and successes in developing a mitigation strategy in their countries.

M. Wayne GreeneDirector, Disaster Preparedness Resources CentreUniversity of British Columbia

vi Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

FOREWORD

Recent natural disasters in North America and their devastating impact require that we take action and reduce the spiraling costs of recovery. Canadian activities and legislation have focused on preparedness and response. As a result these components are well studied and developed, and many communities have successfully implemented effective programs. On the other hand, the components of recovery, especially reconstruction, and mitigation have not been fully developed. This is due in part to the perceived complexity, lack of process direction, and the overwhelming potential costs associated with recovery and mitigation. However, the participants believe that the impact of hazards can be significantly reduced by applying the knowledge we already have to the formulation of a National Mitigation Strategy. With such a strategy, we can save needless loss of property and lives.

The title "Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy," reflects the intent of this project. The Mitigation Symposium was sponsored by Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) and involved the combined efforts of Canadian participants. The project team worked on an aggressive timeline to bring together diverse skill sets and to formulate a set of recommendations that would allow the joint sponsors to take the results forward and to promote action on the development of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada.

Participants representing industry, academia, government and non-government organizations from across Canada participated in the symposium to assist with the development of a set of recommendations for the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada. The participants also included representatives from the United States (FEMA-Federal Emergency Management Agency) and Australia (EMA-Emergency Management Australia) who shared their processes, results, and lessons learned with the group.

It was not the intent of the symposium to develop a blueprint for a National Mitigation Strategy; such a goal would be premature at this time. Rather, the mission of the program was to gather support for, and ideas surrounding, how best to move forward with the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada (thus, the word "towards" was consciously used within the title).

Comprehensive Symposium Proceedings vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document represents the combined efforts of many participants as a result of the joint sponsorship of Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

Approach

The approach for the symposium was to have each participant submit a series of written responses to some specific questions, problems, and issues (QPIs) related to the concept of mitigation in general, and to the introduction of a National Mitigation Strategy in Canada. These papers were submitted in advance of a two-day working session, held in November in Vancouver at the University of British Columbia. The two-day session included a series of breakout sessions where participants were asked to discuss specific topics resulting from the submitted papers and to develop consensus on as many recommendations as possible within the timeframe.

Findings and Resulting Action Items

The symposium participants identified many ideas and recommendations that are relevant to the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy. The lessons learned from our colleagues in the United States and Australia helped to guide some of the discussion and the formulation of action items and recommendations. These results were grouped under the following categories:

• Merits• Scope and Content• Recommended Tactics• Design Process

The "action items" that were developed can be taken forward for immediate action by industry, educational institutes, communities, and governments at the provincial, regional, territorial and local levels. However, in order to formulate a coordinated and truly national effort, some prerequisites are required. These include the need to identify one or more champions for the process and to get mitigation on the political agenda. Thus, the participants developed a "concluding recommendation" that will initiate action on the work from the symposium and provide momentum for moving towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy.

viii Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

Conclusion

The symposium participants are eager to see movement on the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada and clearly demonstrated a strong support for the need for, and a willingness to participate in, its implementation. They also recognize that federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments must work in partnership on mitigation both among themselves and with non-government organizations, academia, industry and industry associations, communities and individuals.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has stated that they will be moving forward with their plans to create the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, which will be the focal point for the insurance industry's efforts regarding loss mitigation. This is a good first step.

In closing the symposium, Wayne Greene provided a quote from Marie Curie to emphasize the tremendous results we had gained over the two-day workshop and to reflect on the work that lies ahead for designing, developing, and implementing a national mitigation strategy:

/ was taught that the way of progress is neither swift nor easy.

With this in mind, and considering the need for immediate action, the symposium participants agreed to clearly define their concluding recommendation, as follows:

It is recommended that Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) take the concepts, principles, scope and process as recommended by this symposium to the next federal/provincial senior officials conference in early 1998 for their consideration, action, and recommendation.


APPROACH

This section represents the "charge to participants" and includes the aim, objectives, and approach provided to all participants in advance of the symposium.

Introduction

Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) jointly sponsored the Mitigation Symposium, which was coordinated and conducted through the Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre (DPRC) at the University of British Columbia.

Aim of the Symposium

Recent natural disasters in North America and their devastating impact require that we take action and reduce the spiraling costs of recovery. Canadian activities and legislation have focused on preparedness and response. As a result these components are well studied and developed and many communities have successfully implemented effective programs. On the other hand, the components of recovery, especially reconstruction and mitigation, have not been fully developed. This is due in part to the perceived complexity, lack of process direction, and the overwhelming potential costs associated with recovery and mitigation.

To address the need for a focus on a mitigation strategy in Canada, the aim of the symposium was developed in consultation with the sponsors and was:

To present recommendations for the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy.

Objectives

The objectives, therefore, flowed from the aim and were summarized as follows:

• To develop working definitions for "disaster" and for the "disaster management process"which embody the importance of mitigation;

• To develop a useable definition for "mitigation" and a list of general criteria to be usedin evaluating mitigation programs; and,

Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

• To present a conceptual framework for consideration of mitigation strategies within the context of:

1. eliminating the hazard;2. reducing the risk of a hazardous event taking place;3. reducing the consequences of a hazardous event; and,4. spreading the risk.

Outcome of the Symposium

The outcome of the symposium was intended to be a clear set of recommendations that will form the foundation for the introduction of a National Mitigation Strategy in Canada.

A project steering committee was formed and a project coordinator assigned to manage the project activities and to facilitate the symposium sessions.

Preparation

The project steering committee met to develop an approach to the symposium that would meet the requirements and objectives of the joint sponsors.

The approach that was identified was a combination of individual contributions and focus group sessions. Over a series of meetings, a number of questions, problems and issues (QPIs) related to the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy were identified. These were circulated to the joint sponsors for their review and approval. The confirmed QPIs (see Appendix B) were refined into a manageable list of 20 and were grouped into four broad categories:

1. Developing Safer Communities

Identify and promote cost-effective approaches so new structures can be built safely, existing structures retrofitted to better withstand future catastrophes, and so that communities are resilient before, during and after disasters. Consider sustainability and the notion of the "healthy community."

2. Establish Working Partnerships

Provide a forum for concerned allies (government, industry, NGO and professional and community organizations and associations) to work together to reduce the human and financial cost of disasters. Encourage widespread, active participation in such partnerships to support mitigation activities.


3. Enhance Industry and Government ActionPromote action within private industry and government towards effective disaster risk management practices through targeted research and dissemination of information and provide encouragement to turn such lessons into action.

4. Encourage Public ParticipAction

Enhance consumer awareness of the benefits of mitigation as a means of reducing loss due to catastrophes and encourage active participation in developing individual and community programs for mitigation.

Simultaneously, the project steering committee and joint sponsors identified potential participants from a broad cross section of industry, academia, and government and non-government organizations who could represent specific regional interests from across Canada (see Appendix A). The participants were provided with a background document describing the aim of the symposium, the objectives, and the approach that was planned. This background document is included in Appendix D.

Working Definitions for the Symposium

It was agreed that a working definition of "mitigation" would be fundamental to the subsequent research, analysis, discussion, and recommendation development that were part of this project. This definition was meant to provide a context in which the participants could focus on practical recommendations that can be reasonably adopted and applied. Therefore, the project steering committee and joint sponsors agreed on the following working definition of mitigation to be used within the context of the symposium:

Sustained action to reduce the risk to life, property and the environment from hazards.

In this context, hazards has been defined to include:

(1) natural(2) diseases and epidemics and(3) person-induced (technological)

Furthermore, with regard to disaster management, it was decided that the following guideline would be used:

At the community level, the goal of disaster management is: to assist communities to respond before, during, and after a disaster in order to save


lives, to preserve property, and to maintain the social, ecological, economic, and political stability of the impacted region.

At the end of the symposium, time was allotted to further discuss and refine these definitions based on participants' feedback and contributions (see Findings and Action Items Sections below for a review of the refined definitions).

Process for Participation

The timeline for the mitigation symposium project was aggressive and was designed to meet the joint sponsors' milestones. The overall approach, therefore, supported the achievement of these target dates.

The symposium consisted of three key components:

1. Submission of Responses to QPIs

The project participants, including industry experts, academicians, government and non-government organization representatives, submitted individual written responses to key questions, problems, and issues (QPIs) related to the topic of mitigation in general and more specifically, to the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada. Each participant was asked to submit a written response to a number of these QPIs (maximum of four) as well as a general discussion paper on an area related to mitigation that they are specifically interested in.

Once submitted, these summaries were compiled and circulated to all participants for review prior to the symposium. (See Appendix E.)

2. A Two-Day Symposium

The two-day symposium was held on November 28 and 29, 1997 at the University of British Columbia campus. It was conducted in a workshop format to discuss the resulting responses to the QPIs and to consider additional comments and considerations.

At the symposium participants were asked to discuss various aspects of the QPI categories. These discussions were based on the submissions from all participants. The discussions focused on problem definition and questions that needed to be addressed as a result of the submissions (e.g., areas of substantial disagreement or contrast and areas of commonality).

Breakout focus groups were identified for each of the QPI categories and the participants were asked to spend some time working together on the various issues and recommendations. Each focus group included five or six participants, a facilitator, an observer, and a recorder.


Six breakout sessions were conducted, based on the QPI categories:

1. Building Safer Communities2. Building Safer Communities: The Role of Insurance3. Establishing Working Partnerships4. Enhancing Industry and Government Action5. Encouraging Public ParticipAction6. Formulation of Overall Recommendations

At the end of each of these breakout sessions, the observer for the focus group reported back to the symposium.

On the afternoon of the second day, facilitated discussions took place in which participants worked toward reaching consensus on as many recommendations as possible. The focus group results from the previous sessions were reviewed. There were also presentations from each of the participants from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the United States and Emergency Management Australia (EMA). These presentations provided a brief description of each country's current program, their development and implementation process, and lessons learned throughout the process. In addition, the participants revisited the definitions provided to them in the background material.

3. Documentation of Findings, Action Items, and Recommendations

Following the Symposium, the findings, action items, and recommendations for the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada were outlined in this document.

Summaries of the symposium were circulated to all the participants in draft form so that they could correct specific content or add pertinent concepts that may not have been fully reflected within the report. The end result is this monograph of the symposium proceedings. It has been circulated to participants and funding agencies.

A copy of the symposium Agenda is included in Appendix C.

'


FINDINGS AND RESULTING ACTION ITEMS

Common themes emerged within focus groups and across the series of breakout sessions that were conducted. The following pages provide a general summary of these key themes and specific points of difference that were raised during the symposium. The more detailed minutes of each of the focus group breakout sessions are included in Appendix F.

Building Safer Communities—Sustainability Issues

Within the context of "building safer communities," sustainability must be considered. That is, the notion of ongoing existence and operation of the community is essential within the context of mitigation.

To support mitigation activities in general, and in more specific terms, community sustainability, it is recognized that a national policy is needed. However, such a policy should be formulated by providing frameworks and models for communities to evaluate and implement as appropriate, rather than prescribing a particular model.

In order to be effective, a National Mitigation Strategy must be simple and clearly stated—a "one liner" followed by logistical details.

Leadership is necessary to move people to action. Both the government and private industry can take a leadership role in mitigation. The current role of the federal government is to deal, upon request, with provincial governments who deal directly with municipalities and regional governments. Therefore, local governments must be in touch with the citizens of their community in order to initiate action.

Assessment of risk at the community level is needed. Research needs to be done on hazard and risks in the community. This research and the resulting actions must recognize the economic issues of the community. A clear statement of responsibility is required and this will be supported by enhancement of codes, compliance, and enforcement activities.

Mitigation should by viewed in a. broad context that includes all hazards or at least multihazards. There is a need to focus on "commonalties" across the country to develop a ground swell of support for mitigation at the national level. Mitigation should become part of the "culture" of the community and, therefore, the country.

To support this ground swell, education of the public at the "grass roots level" is critical. The roles for education (government partnered with NGOs, schools, etc.) need to be clearly defined. The media can be helpful in developing awareness, but, awareness alone will not be enough. For success we will need awareness, tools, and funding together as a package.


A mitigation strategy should take a "risk management approach" and, further, mitigation should be tied into disaster relief funds (e.g., the amount of assistance you receive following a disaster is dependent on the mitigation activities you have implemented). For complete sustainability, mitigative activities should also consider environmental impacts within the community.

Building Safer Communities—The Role of the Insurance Industry

The insurance industry plays a role in encouraging safer communities. Insurance and mitigation are linked. Private property and casualty insurance companies have an interest in mitigation and, as an industry, have begun to take action.

However, the purchase of insurance alone is not mitigation. Insurance reduces the cost of a disaster to an individual by transferring risk from one party to another. Mitigation, as we define it, requires actions to reduce risk. If people do not recognize this distinction, insurance can act as a disincentive to mitigate if people feel a false sense of security because they are insured.

Insurance is key to providing incentives and disincentives. The insurance industry has two roles to play in hazard management: the first is compensating or indemnifying victims; the second is to act as an incentive to mitigate hazards.

Mandatory, all-hazard insurance, as defined within the symposium, is not effective. Standard homeowner policies in Canada cover most natural hazards, with the exception of flood risk. Coverage for most man-made hazards is also available. In some other countries, governments have chosen to underwrite flood insurance (e.g., USA and France). It is important that the government is involved in insurance in areas where it is not economically viable for private insurance companies to operate.

Insurance premiums can provide an incentive to mitigate hazards; however, we know that some people are reluctant to pay extra premiums for single risks. Variable rates, depending on risk, could be implemented (using a community rating system similar to the USA). And, insurance and mitigation should be linked—you cannot get insurance unless your community has mitigation plans in place—insurance must be linked to payouts.

Insurance is only one tool among many to provide incentives to mitigate hazards; other tools include forgivable loans and discounted mortgage rates. Further, insurance only deals with monetary commodities and it does not cover everything impacted by hazards; therefore, it is important not to place too much emphasis on insurance as the only solution. There are community vulnerabilities that can not be addressed solely by financial resources.

8 Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

Additionally, if the government provides financial assistance after a disaster, whether or not you are insured, some people will not mitigate or insure, knowing they are "covered" anyway.

A successful approach is required in order to provide a balance of mitigation and insurance. This includes developing models to help people make assessments that include insurance and mitigative activities.

Developing Public ParticipAction

Mitigation requires activity—it cannot simply be mandated with the expectation that it will be implemented. Individuals will need to take action in order to implement the strategy at the local and personal level. Personal involvement will be necessary for mitigation to succeed. Awareness and education are essential, as are the "tools" to make it happen. In order to make mitigation work in Canada, we will need broad participation.

The public needs to be educated about vulnerability, not just risk. Support for mitigation at all levels will be required, especially community mitigation strategies which are supported with effective leadership.

Mitigation is not necessarily the best, or most appropriate approach in all situations. Mitigation falls on a continuum of interventions—a risk management approach should be undertaken to obtain appropriate strategies. To make decisions and to take action, a broader context than just mitigation is necessary—individuals need tools to make decisions (individually, and at the community level). Examples of tools might include awareness programs, community meetings, clear strategies for action, and the means to communicate with political decision makers.

It is important to recognize that there is a great deal of competition for our resources (of time and money). There is a strong feeling that a mitigation strategy should be "evolutionary" not "revolutionary." It would be beneficial to work with low participation and low-cost solutions first. Plans that over prescribe can be unproductive, and innovative ways of making mitigation a positive experience are required.

Public awareness will not necessarily led to mitigation. A circular process is required involving public awareness and political will. Positive public opinion is required to initiate federal government action. The media can sway public opinion concerning mitigation impacts through the use of clear and repeated messages.

The question arises as to whether people will participate if there is not coercion or enforcement. Creative solutions can be implemented to encourage individuals to act at both the individual and community level. For example, lending institutions could require


insurance prior to lending, or scale premiums in terms of perceived risk. Such actions would keep the concept of mitigation active in the public's mind and would support a change in culture to one of ongoing mitigation.

Encouraging Government and Industry Action

Business risk and community risk need to be considered jointly through the participation of governments and industry. Government and industry play various roles within the context of mitigation. They must mitigate against disasters and prepare themselves for sustainable operation. In addition, business plays a role in response to disasters. Partnerships between government and industry will be valuable in the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada. Government can work as a facilitator for action, and industry and professional associations can play a key role in promoting action (e.g., MIACC). The key for success is to find champions in each sector (government and industry) and to sell mitigation as a series of projects that are tied together. The philosophy in choosing projects would be to "fight the battles that you can win first." The use of successful programs as a model for further action will be beneficial.

We recognize that local governments are key to making mitigation work—they will be the first level of response in a disaster. A National Mitigation Strategy should support national guidelines with a regional focus and local implementation strategies. We must acknowledge that local and federal governments have different processes and different agendas. Planning must occur at the local government (community) level.

Funding, however, would be an issue at the local level if the local government were required to fully finance implementation strategies. A National Mitigation Strategy needs to consider "What financial assistance should be provided, by whom and to whom?"

Establishing Partnerships

Partnerships will provide the needed "leverage" for mitigation activities. Partnerships provide opportunity for coordination and cooperation, and since no one group has enough money or knowledge on their own, partnerships are needed as leverage to make a National Mitigation Strategy succeed.

Partnerships can be at the community, industry, national, and international levels (multifaceted partnerships). This would be termed a "partnership of partnerships," which recognizes that there are already many organizations and associations working on mitigation activities. It further acknowledges that government and non-government organizations, academia, industry and industry associations, communities and individuals must work in partnership to design, develop, and implement an appropriate mitigation strategy for Canada.


Within this context, this "partnership of partnerships" must be effectively managed to ensure that this program is successful. This model takes advantage of the experience of others (other countries, industry groups, advocacy groups) within the area of mitigation and supports the notion of collaboration without duplication.

There will, however, be a need to ensure active participation in partnerships and not a "downloading" of responsibility to other partnership members. This can be accomplished through clearly defined objectives and roles for partnership members; structured partnerships are best.

Partnerships do not happen by themselves; they must have leadership and clear goals. Some successful partnerships already exist, and these can be expanded and value can be gained from observing how they work. There is also an opportunity to create partnerships with existing organizations that are not generally involved in mitigation, such as environmental groups, social assistance groups). As well, a national association of emergency planners would be advantageous.

Advocacy is one way of drawing groups into the area of mitigation. Partnerships would provide funding and leadership for the programs and effective lobbying.

Presentation from FEMA, United States of America (Richard Krimm)

Richard Krimm provided a presentation on how the FEMA program works in the United States. He discussed the process for implementing and promoting their mitigation program and provided results of their experience. The two goals of the FEMA strategy are:

1. to substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk so that the publicdemands safer communities in which to live and work; and,

2. to significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and destruction ofnatural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards.

Presentation from EMA, Australia (John Salter and Jonathan Abrahams)

John Salter gave a short presentation on the Risk Management Framework approach being used in Australia. They are making a clear distinction between hazard and risk: "hazard" is something with the potential to produce harm, and "risk" is a concept used to give meaning to "things, forces or circumstances"'that pose a danger. Salter noted that in Australia risk management is a framework for the "systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, treating and monitoring risk."

Comprehensive Symposium Proceedings 11

Jonathan Abrahams gave a presentation on the draft "Proposal for a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy" which proposes a process to improve disaster mitigation in Australia, through:

• the establishment of a working group to develop details for the Strategy

• the establishment of parallel state/territory mitigation committees to managestrategies

• the establishment of a national expert group or groups to develop mitigation strategiesand best practice guidelines

Refinement of Definitions

The goal of this discussion was to refine the definitions for the context of this project. It was agreed that further discussion on the definitions should be carried out in later phases of the project, but consensus was reached that the following definitions would be presented by the overall group for this report:

Mitigation

Actions to reduce the risk to life, property, and the environment from hazards. * * Risk includes the risk, consequences, and impacts. Hazards include natural and person-induced hazards.

The major changes to this definition are that the word "sustained" was removed and that the hazards were summarized to specify natural and person-induced only. It should also be noted that substantial discussion took place regarding the specification of which hazards should be included and how they should be labeled. The group discussed natural, human, and technological, as well as diseases, epidemics, and environmental hazards and could not reach a final agreement on the level of detail that should be included in this definition. (Specifically, some participants felt that the summarization above included all of the other types of hazards, and others felt that certain hazards were substantial enough to warrant specific mention). The group did, however, reach consensus that for the purpose of this report, the above specification would be sufficient.

The objectives for the symposium included the requirement "[t]o develop a usable definition for 'mitigation' and a list of general criteria to be used in evaluating mitigation programs. The first part of this objective was achieved with the above definition, but it was agreed that it is premature to address the second part of this objective until further work is completed on establishing the framework for a National Mitigation Strategy and refining the definition (see Summary).


Consolidation of Findings and Resulting Action Items

The findings from the various breakout sessions carried a number of repeating themes and concepts. Based on these common themes, the findings were consolidated into four new categories that will contribute to the effective design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada. These four categories lay the framework for the "next steps" of the process and present a series of action items for a successful move forward.

The first group of recommendations were based on the idea of merits and endorsements for the concept of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada. The next group of recommendations focus on the scope and content of a National Strategy. These recommendations identify the "boundaries" for consideration and provide a framework under which future activity may progress.

The third group included a series of more specific recommendations that, although they are too detailed for this point in the planning process, are included here as potential "tactics" for inclusion in a National Mitigation Strategy. They are included primarily because they provide some background information and support, not only for the importance of a strategy, but they also illustrate that creative and actionable ideas exist for implementing such a strategy. Finally, specific recommendations are provided for the next steps on moving forward from here (the process for designing a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada).

1. Merits of a National Mitigation Strategy

This category includes ideas regarding why we need a National Mitigation Strategy in Canada; what the benefits of such a program will be; and how we can gain support for and participation in the design, development, and implementation of such a program.

In response to these questions, the symposium participants concluded that it is now generally acknowledged that the increasing costs of disasters could be significantly reduced by investments in prevention and mitigation (e.g., Red River Floodway in Manitoba) and that such investments have been proven to be beneficial. It is felt that a continued focus only on improved response efforts to alleviate the effects of disasters has a diminishing payoff (1) because of the limitations to significant improvements in that area and (2) because response measures are "after the fact" and do not address the need to reduce risk. Continued large payouts for disaster damage and reconstruction will place greater strains on all levels of the Canadian economy and society. The group felt that the examples of the USA and Australia in making a National Mitigation Strategy work were positive models for the merits and success of national mitigation programs.


The wisdom and experience of the symposium participants have led to the recommended endorsement of the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada.

2. Scope and Content for a National Mitigation Strategy

This category includes suggestions for the most appropriate principles and context under which the design of a National Mitigation Strategy should take place.

Having considered the merits of a National Mitigation Strategy, it was important to determine the breadth and depth (scope) that such a strategy should include. In terms of the "context" of a National Strategy, the participants agreed that it must be seen by all stakeholders as doable, actionable, tangible, and relevant. It should focus on the premise to "think global, act local" (including national guidelines, regional strategies, and local implementation). However, to be successful, accountability must go with responsibility.

To make this work, it was agreed that solutions must be provided that are easy to implement and that are "toolkit" based (packaged in a format that is distributable to those with the mandate to take action). Furthermore, the strategy should focus not only on big disasters, but on various kinds of disasters that may impact the community and individuals.

It must include layers of strategy which include national, federal, provincial/ regional/territorial, local, and individual. In this sense, a philosophy of guiding without prescribing should be adopted as a principle within the framework of designing the strategy. The guidelines should be provided at the national level, with the implementation strategies being designed and implemented as close to the community level as possible. Legislation will be required but will not be sufficient.

3. Recommended Tactics for a National Mitigation Strategy

This category includes potential components or tactics that could be included in a National Mitigation Strategy.

Although it is premature at this time to define the content and tactics of a National Mitigation Strategy, it is important to acknowledge the ideas that were developed within the symposium context. These ideas provide some strong, recurring themes that may prove useful in determining the most effective approach for moving forward and, therefore, they are included in this report.

• Exploration of new avenues to make the price of insurance an accurate measure of individual risk should be undertaken by the insurance industry. This would improve the


incentive provided by insurance premiums. In the United States, for example, there is a community rating system for insurance based on risk assessment for the area. Different communities have different premiums based on the risk level identified, and this system is working well.

• Introduction of forgivable loans to communities would help to implement and enforcemitigative measures before or immediately following a disaster (if they use the funds toimplement mitigative measures, then the loan will be forgivable).

• Refinement of land use and zoning regulations would ensure that current structures andcommunities are supported and that new development does not occur in high risk areas;or that areas are adequately evaluated in light of the hazards and risk involved, withappropriate mitigation measures regulated.

• Introduction of some form of tax incentives for communities would aid in thedevelopment of local mitigation strategies.

• Development of an endowment fund and/or reserves for mitigation assistance should beinstituted. These funds would be allocated for mitigation assistance, rather than drawingresources from other funding allocations.

Within the context of this discussion, the participants continuously emphasized that the partnership model (between government and non-government organizations, academia, industry and industry associations, communities, and individuals) is key to the successful introduction of a National Mitigation Strategy.

4. Process for Designing a National Mitigation Strategy

This category focuses on the next steps involved in designing a National Strategy. The next steps would ensure that the good work developed within the context of this symposium is not lost or forgotten, but that it is taken forward and used to provide the groundwork and foundation toward the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy.

It was recognized that some of these activities can occur in a simultaneous manner while others require that specific prerequisite activities are completed or initiated first (for example, sponsorship and championship are key to all other activities being accomplished).

The participants agreed that the design of a National Mitigation Strategy would need to be conducted within a partnership approach, often referred to as a "partnership of partnerships." This term recognizes that there are already many organizations and associations working on mitigation activities. And, it further recognizes that government and non-government


organizations, academia, industry and industry associations, communities and individuals must work in partnership to design, develop and implement an appropriate mitigation strategy for Canada. Within this context, this "partnership of partnerships" must be effectively managed to ensure that this program is successful. This model takes advantage of the experience of others (other countries, industry groups, advocacy groups, et cetera) within the area of mitigation and supports the notion of collaboration without duplication.

The process for designing a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada must be an approach that is:

• phased in gradually• evolutionary not revolutionary• innovative• marketable• filtered through the media to support the design, development, and implementation

processes

To make the National Strategy a reality, there is a need to influence the public to take individual action and also to encourage community and national action (change culture and attitude). The process will need to focus on commonalties and deal with differences within and across communities and interest groups.

Such an approach is a cyclical process of influencing perception, awareness, education and action. To support this, and to support the design, development, and implementation of the Strategy, facts are required for analysis of real life situations. An inventory of existing facts and analyses, strategies, programs, associations, knowledge, and legislation will need to be conducted, documented, and communicated.

Most important, however, is the need to identify appropriate champions and the need for mitigation to be put on the political agenda.


CONCLUSION

The symposium participants are convinced of the merits of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada. Disasters are expensive in terms of social, financial, and environmental costs so there is merit in undertaking the design, development, and implementation of a National Strategy. Based on historical results, we know that mitigation saves lives and money.

The group felt, however, that early on in the development process, the merits and benefits of a Canadian Strategy must be substantiated through a comprehensive study of historical data, existing programs and investments, and available resources for recovery and response activities. Such a study will provide quantification of the costs (financial, social, and environmental) of disasters; the ability to pay for response and recovery; and the overall effectiveness of mitigation vis-a-vis the required investment.

The participants are anxious to see movement on the design, development, and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada and clearly demonstrated a strong support for the need for, and a willingness to participate in, the implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has stated that they will be moving forward with their plans to create the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, which will be the focal point for the insurance industry's efforts regarding loss mitigation. This is a good first step.

In closing the symposium, Wayne Greene provided a quote from Marie Curie to emphasize the tremendous results we had gained over the two-day workshop and to reflect on the work that lies ahead:

/ was taught that the way of progress is neither swift nor easy.

With this in mind, the participants considered the recommendations developed within the context of the symposium and the ability for these to create a "call to action" on a national level.

Although the "action items" that were developed (as presented in the preceding section) can be taken forward for immediate action by industry, educational institutes, communities and governments at the provincial, regional, territorial and local levels, in order to formulate a coordinated and truly national effort, some prerequisites are required. These include the need to identify one or more champions for the process and to get mitigation on the political agenda. Thus, the participants developed a recommendation that will initiate action on the work from the symposium and that will provide momentum for moving towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy.

The concluding recommendation from the symposium is:

It is recommended that Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) take the concepts, principles, scope and process as recommended by this symposium to the next federal/provincial senior officials conference in early 1998 for their consideration, action and recommendation.

'

APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANTS

Participants 21

APPENDIX A - PARTICIPANTS

Participant Roles

The symposium involved many individuals who contributed time and knowledge to ensuring the success of the program.

Participants represented industry, academia, government and non-government organizations from across Canada, and from the United States (FEMA) and Australia (EMA). Participants were active in submitting written papers on the QPIs and were involved in the discussions within the breakout sessions.

Coordinators for the symposium ensured that the program was organized and managed the objectives of the joint sponsors.

Facilitators ensured the effective conduct of the breakout sessions. They were responsible for ensuring that the identified topics were discussed, that areas of commonality were highlighted and that, where possible, consensus was developed on areas of difference.

Observers attended each breakout session and were responsible for providing feedback to the complete group about the key themes and ideas that emerged in each of the breakout sessions. They played an active role in assisting in the consolidation of the recommendations and common themes.

Recorders took detailed notes of the proceedings of each of the breakout sessions.

Symposium ParticipantsName Organization Address

Jonathan Abrahams Assistant Director, Policy Emergency Management Australia

8th Floor, Northbourne House 219 Northbourne Ave., Turner Act 2612 Postal AddressPO Box 1020, Dickson, ACT 2602, Australia Phone: (61-2)6266-6219Fax: (61-2) 6257-7665 E-mail: [email protected]

Edda Brown Chief, Emergency Plans Transport Canada ABDA

Place de Ville, Tower C, 14th Floor 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0N5 Phone: (613)947-5074 Fax: (613)957-6414 E-mail: [email protected]

22 Appendix A

Name Organization AddressIan Burton Adjunct Professor, 72 Coolmine Road

University of Toronto Toronto. Ontario M6J 3E9Scientist Emeritus, Phone: (416) 739-4314 (w) '"Environment Canada (416) 538-2034 (h)

Fax: (416) 739-4297E-mail: [email protected] j

Robin Charlwood Vice President 4342 Queen Street, PO Box 1001Acres International Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6W1Limited and Tel 905-374-0701, L. 5348CNC-IDNDR Fax: 905-374-1157

E-mail: [email protected]

Rick Clevette Manager, 4342 Queen Street, PO Box 1001Fire Management Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6W1Protection Branch Tel:" 905-374-0701, L. 5348BC Ministry of Forests Fax: 905-374-1157


Scott Crowley - Director, Risk The Hudson's Bay CompanyManagement 2101-401 Bay StreetThe Hudson's Bay Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y4Company Phone: 1-800-596-2342/(416) 861-6060

Fax: (416) 861-6225E-mail: [email protected]

Helene Denis Professor, University of P.O. Box 6079Montreal Succ. Centre TownEcole de Polytechnique Montreal. Quebec H3C 3A7

Street Address2900 Edouard MontpetitMontreal Quebec H3T 1J4Phone: (514) 340-4711, ext. 4569Fax: (514)340-4173E-mail: [email protected]

Liam Finn Professor, Civil University of British ColumbiaEngineering 2324 Main Mall Zone 4University of British Phone: (604)822-4938Columbia Fax:: (604)822-6901


Participants 23

Name Organization AddressFaye Goodwin Manager 700 Montreal Road

Corporate Security and Ottawa, ON K1A0P7Emergency Phone: (613)748-2758Preparedness, Fax: (613)748-2213CMHC E-mail: [email protected]

Dexada Jorgensen BCTel Corporate Emergency Planning19th Floor, 3777 KingswayBurnaby, BC V5H 3Z7Phone: (604)432-2055Fax: (604) 430-0433E-mail :[email protected]

Grant Kelly Project Director Catastrophic Loss MitigationCatastrophic Loss Insurance Bureau of CanadaMitigation Suite 1800, 151 Yonge StreetInsurance Bureau of Toronto, Ontario M5C 2W7Canada Phone: (416)362-2031

Fax: (416)361-5952e-mail: [email protected]

Richard Krimm Senior Policy Advisor 700 New Hampshire Ave NW, Apt. 603for Mitigation Washington, DC 20037-2406Federal Emergency Phone: (202) 646-2898Management Fax: (202)646-3231Agency E-mail: [email protected]

Mary Fran Myers Natural Hazards Campus Box 482Research and Boulder, Colorado 80309Applications Phone: (303)492-2150Information Center Fax: (303)492-2151Institute for Behavioral E-mail: [email protected] of Coloradoat Boulder

John Newton John Newton 262 Robert St.Associates Toronto, Ontario M5S 2K8

Phone: (416)929-3621Fax: (416)929-3621E-mail: [email protected]

•

24 Appendix A

Name Organization AddressRex Pattison Senior Manger, 1601 - 100 Yonge Street

Business Resumption Toronto, ON M5H 1H1Planning Phone: (416)866-2084Scotiabank Fax: (416)866-5706

E-mail: n/aHans Rainer Research Officer - 207-7251 MinoruBlvd.

Retired Richmond, BC V6Y 3P5National Research Phone: (604) 273-8408Council Fax: (604) 273-8408

E-mail: [email protected] Rapp Safety and Emergency City of Whitehorse

Services Officer 2121 2nd AvenueCity of Whitehorse Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 1C2

Phone: (867) 668-8336Fax: (867) 668-8387E-mail: [email protected]

Gary Redmond National Coordinator, National OfficeEmergency Services 1800 Alta Vista Drive, Ottawa, ON K1GCanadian Red Cross 4J5Society Tel: (613)739-2085

Fax: (613)739-2599Alberta Office9931-106th Street, Edmonton, AB T5K1E2Phone: (403) 423-2680Fax: (403) 428-7092E-mail: [email protected]

Peter Robinson BC Housing Suite 1701, 4330 KingswayBurnaby, BC V5H 4S9Tel: (604)433-1711Fax: (604)439-4722E-mail: [email protected]

Alan Ruffman President 5112 Prince StreetGeomarine Associates Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2L4Ltd. Phone: (902) 422-6482

Fax: (902) 422-6483

Participants 25

Name Organization AddressMichael Salib President and CEO

MIACC265 Carling Avenue, Suite 600 Ottawa, ON K1S2E1 Phone:(613)232-4435 Fax: (613)232-4915 E-mail: [email protected]

John Salter Assistant Director Development Australian Emergency Management Institute

Mt. Macedon Road Mount Macedon VIC 3441 Victoria, Australia Phone: (61-3)5421-5245 Fax: (61-3)5421-5272 E-mail: [email protected]

Chris Tucker Senior Scientific Advisor Emergency Preparedness Canada

122 Bank Street 2nd Floor, Jackson Building Ottawa, Ontario K1A0W6 Phone: (613)991-7071 Fax: (613)996-0995 E-mail: [email protected]

Peter Walton Media Consultant 212-640 West Broadway Vancouver, BC V5G 1G6 Phone: (604)871-9977 Fax: (604) 871-9977 E-mail: [email protected]

26 Appendix A

CoordinatorsName Organization Address

Pamela Hollington Project Coordinator 207-222 West 4*h StreetRebound Consulting North Vancouver, B.C.Ltd. Phone:(604)988-4102

Fax: (604)988-8169E-mail: [email protected]

M. Wayne Greene Director, Health, Safety 2206 East Mall, 4th Floor& Environment and University of British ColumbiaDirector, Disaster Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3Preparedness Phone: (604)822-4218Resources Centre Fax: (604)822-6164University of British E-mail: [email protected]

Elizabeth Zook Research Manager 2206 East Mall, 4th FloorDisaster Preparedness University of British ColumbiaResources Centre Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3University of British Phone: (604)822-6002Columbia Fax: (604)822-6164


FacilitatorsName Organization Address

Mike Braham Director Emergency Preparedness Canada

122 Bank Street, 2nd Floor, Jackson Building, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W6 Phone: (613) 991-7070 Fax: (613) 996-0995 E-mail: Mike. [email protected]

John Oakley Coordinator/Instructor Emergency Management Division Justice Institute of British Columbia

715 McBride New Westminster, BC V3L 5T4 Phone: (604) 525-5523 Fax: (604) 528-5798 E-mail: [email protected]

Laurie Pearce Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre University of British Columbia

2206 East Mall, 4th Floor Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Phone: (604) 929-4560 Fax: (604) 929-4561 E-mail: [email protected]

Ross Peterson Coordinator North and West Vancouver Emergency Program

147 East 14th Street North Vancouver, BC V7L 2N4 Phone: (604) 983-7440 Fax: (604) 985-3733 E-mail: [email protected]

Participants 27

ObserversName Organization Address

Roberto Gonzalez Regional Director, BC PO Box 10000and Yukon Division Victoria, BC V8W 3A5Emergency Phone: (250) 363-3621Preparedness Canada Fax: (250) 363-3995


Tony Heemskerk Director 455 Boleskine RoadProvincial Emergency Victoria, BC V8Z 1E7Program (BC) Phone: (250) 952-4895

Fax: (250) 952-4888

Larry Pearce Research Associate 455 Boleskine RoadDisaster Preparedness Victoria, BC V8Z 1E7Resources Centre Phone: (250) 952-4895University of British Fax: (250) 952-4888Columbia E-mail: [email protected]

Bill White Regional Manager, Public Works Canada and GovernmentPacific Region Services CanadaEmergency Planning, Suite 1330, 800 BurrardSafety and Security Vancouver, BC V6Z 2V8 |Finance, Planning and Phone: (604) 666-1095Administration Fax: (604) 775-9380Directorate E-mail: [email protected]

Recorders

Lisa Bhopalsingh Stephen Billington Barbara Mugabe Shaugn Schwartz

Masters StudentsSchool of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British Columbia

•■"

APPENDIX B

QPIS _ QUESTIONS, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

Questions, Problems and Issues 31

APPENDIX B - QPIs (Questions, Problems and Issues)

OverviewThe steering committed identified a series of questions, problems and issues related to the topic of mitigation and to the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy. The collections of these items were named "QPIs" and formed the basis of discussion and review by the participants.

QPI CategoriesTo facilitate presentation and to provide a framework for the QPIs, the following categories were developed.

Developing/Providing Safer Communities

Identify and promote cost-effective approaches so new structures can be built safely, existing structures retrofitted to better withstand future catastrophes, and so that communities are resilient before, during and after disasters. Consider sustainability and the notion of the "healthy community".

Establish Working Partnerships

Provide a forum for concerned allies (government, industry, NGO and professional and community organizations and associations) to work together to reduce the human and financial cost of disasters. Encourage widespread, active participation in such partnerships to support mitigation activities.

Enhance Industry and Government Action

Promote action within private industry and government towards effective disaster risk management practices through targeted research and dissemination of information and provide encouragement to turn such lessons into action.

Encourage Public ParticipAction

Enhance, consumer awareness of the benefits of mitigation as a means of reducing loss due to catastrophes and encourage active participation in developing individual and community programs for mitigation.

32 Appendix B

QPIs for the Mitigation Symposium

Discussion Area Q# Q

Building Safer Communities

Consider issues regarding high-risk areas (flood-plains, landslides, etc.). Include discussion regarding the relocation or retrofitting of homes located in such areas.

Consider the issues related to sustainability of infrastructure and buildings during and after a disaster that focus on the functionality of the structure after the disaster.

Discuss the benefits and problems surrounding the idea of a national insurance program. Consider and discuss:• The socioeconomic and cultural issues that affect

peoples' willingness to purchase insurance• Who would pay for such a program, but who would

benefit.?• Would participation be mandatory or voluntary?• The scope of participation (homeowners, small

business, corporations, local, provincial, federalgovernments)?

Discuss the issues related to the new demographics of highly focused, highly populated areas.

Do specific hazards necessitate separate, focused strategies (e.g., wildfire urban interface, pest infestation, etc.)? How will priorities be arrived at for such special programs (historical data, current levels of property damage, risk of loss of life and injury)?

How can we incorporate a national vision of land-use development in order to reduce the risk from disaster, while respecting the autonomy of local governments? (Consider zoning for high-hazard areas, etc.)

What is the effectiveness of non-structural mitigation and how could a national strategy encourage/address non-structural mitigation?

Questions, Problems and Issues 33

Discussion Area Q# QPIDeveloping Public Participaction

8 How do we ensure compliance with a National Mitigation Strategy?

9 What is the value of public awareness to the development and implementation of a mitigation strategy? And, what is the role of future participation of the public in the development phase of the strategy?

Enhancing Government and Industry Action

10 Discuss the merits of an all-hazards insurance program. Consider whether such a program would ensure insurers provide coverage for all risk areas.

11 How can a mitigation strategy balance the commercial/economic needs of business, with the social and community requirements for sustainability, life safety, and recovery?

12 How can we convince governments, in a time of fiscal restraint, that mitigation is a cost-effective activity?

13 How can we convince the insurance and financial institutions to provide funding for mitigation and to form partnerships with government and private sector organizations to establish a viable mitigation strategy?

14 Should a percentage of DFAA be allocated for restoration work (which may include upgrading for mitigative purposes)? If so, how much?

15 Why have some mitigation strategies been successfully implemented (what are the motivators for designing and implementing mitigation strategies)?

34 Appendix B

Discussion Area Q# QPIEstablishing Partnerships

16 From a government perspective, what are the appropriate levels of authority for mitigation? What incentives could be used to encourage levels of governments towards a National Mitigation Strategy?

17 How can a mitigation strategy balance the benefits of mitigation versus the imposition of government control over lives of individuals and business?

18 Should a national strategy provide for a mandate that utilities coordinate their mitigation activities (with each other and with government organizations and agencies)? Should there be a mandated/legislated requirement for them to be prepared and if so, should specific mitigation levels be specified for utilities (time of recovery, etc.)?

19 What can we best learn from the efforts of other countries regarding the implementation of mitigation programs?

20 What role would the following types of organizations and/or associations contribute to the development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy: national association of emergency managers • industry associations such as MIACC and TRANSCAER • NGOs • the media

. I

APPENDIX C

SYMPOSIUM AGENDA

Symposium Agenda 37

APPENDIX C - SYMPOSIUM AGENDA

Thursday, November 27

Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, 4tn Floor

6:00 - 7:30 Reception

Friday, November 28Cecil Green Park, University of British Columbia, 6251 Cecil Green Park Road

7:30 Meet in Front of Walter Gage Conference Centre for walk to meeting location7:45 Continental Breakfast8:30 Welcome & Introductions9:00 Breakout Session #1: Building Safer Communities

10:00 Coffee Break10:30 Continuation of Breakout Session #112:00 Lunch Served1:15 Breakout Session #2: Developing Public Participaction2:45 Refreshment Break3:00 Breakout Session #3: Enhancing Government & Industry Action4:30 Meeting ends5:45 Pick-up in Front of Walter Gage Conference Centre6:30 Dinner: The Cannery, 2205 Commissioner Street (254-9606)

Saturday, November 29Green College - Coach House, University of British Columbia, 6201 Cecil Green Park Rd.

7:45 Continental Breakfast8:30 Breakout Session #4: Establishing Partnerships

10:00 Coffee Break10:30 Discussion on US & Australian Implementation Strategies12:00 Lunch Served1:00 Consolidation of Findings and Refinement of Definitions2:00 Breakout Session #5: Recommendations for the Implementation of Canada's Mitigation

Strategy3:30 Refreshment Break3:45 Development of Recommendations5:00 Meeting Ends

APPENDIX D

PARTICIPANTS' BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

Participants' Background Document 41

APPENDIX D

PARTICIPANTS' BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

This appendix contains a consolidated version of the guidelines that were distributed to each participant prior to the symposium.

Introduction

We are pleased that you have agreed to participate in this important initiative and look forward to a mutually beneficial working relationship.

As we work through this program, it is essential that we continue to focus on the aim and objectives set forth by the project steering committee and project sponsors.

The Aim of the Symposium

"To present recommendations for the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy."

Objectives:

■ • To develop working definitions for "disaster" and for the "disaster management process" which embody the importance of mitigation;

• To develop a useable definition for "mitigation" and a list of general criteria to be used inevaluating mitigation programs; and,

• To present a conceptual framework for consideration of mitigation strategies within thecontext of:

1. eliminating the hazard;2. reducing the risk of a hazardous event taking place;3. reducing the consequences of a hazardous event; and,4. spreading the risk.

The Outcome of the Symposium

The outcome of the symposium will be a clear set of recommendations that will form the foundation for the introduction of a National Mitigation Strategy in Canada.

42 Appendix D

Working Definitions for the Symposium

Reflecting on the topic of the symposium and the approach we will be using to achieve the project objectives, it was agreed that a working definition of "mitigation" is fundamental to the subsequent research, analysis, discussion, and recommendation development that are part of this project. We want to provide a context in which to focus on practical recommendations that can be reasonably adopted and applied. Therefore, the Project Steering Committee and Project Sponsors have agreed on the following working definition of mitigation to be used within the context of the symposium:

Mitigation: Sustained action to reduce the risk to life, property, and the environment from HAZARDS.

In this context, hazards has been defined to include:

(1) natural(2) diseases and epidemics and(3) person-induced (technological).

Furthermore, with regard to disaster management, we will use the following reference:

At the community level, the goal of disaster management is: to assist communities to respond before, during, and after a disaster in order to save lives, to preserve property, and to maintain the social, ecological, economic, and political stability of the impacted region.

At the end of the symposium (during the second day of the workshop), time will be provided to further discuss and refine these definitions based on participants' feedback and contributions.

Symposium Approach

The timeline for the mitigation symposium project is aggressive and has been designed to meet the project sponsors' milestones. The overall approach, therefore, will support the achievement of these target dates.

The symposium consists of three key components:

1. Submission of responses by industry experts, government representatives, and academicians, to key questions, problems, and issues (QPIs) related to mitigation in general and more specifically, to the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy;


2. A two-day symposium to be conducted in a workshop format to discuss the resultingresponses and to consider additional comments and considerations; and,

3. A set of recommendations will be outlined for the design, development and implementationof a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada.

Within the framework of this approach, the project steering committee has compiled a list of questions/problems/issues (QPIs) for consideration by the symposium participants.

As a participant, you are asked to submit a response to a number of these QPIs (maximum of 4) as well as a general discussion on an area related to mitigation that you are specifically interested in (see following section for more specific details).

Once submitted, these summaries/position papers will be compiled and circulated to all participants. It is our plan to have these summaries available to all participants prior to the symposium.

At the symposium participants will be invited to discuss various aspects of the QPI's. This will be based on their earlier submissions. They will focus on problem definition and questions that need to be-addressed.

Breakout focus groups will be identified and will spend some time working together on various QPI's and recommendations. These three or four focus groups will report back to the symposium. Open discussion will result in ranking recommendations for priority.

The second day of the symposium will start with participants regrouping with different team members to define potential solutions to the QPI's. Again this discussion will be based on the earlier submissions and may include some of the thoughts from day one.

A new set of focus groups (with different team members) will be formed and as in day one they will work on solutions with a facilitator. Again, the focus groups will report back to the symposium.

The afternoon of day two will be devoted to discussions of the results from the focus groups during the previous IH days. This process will take place in the form of a panel discussion, round table discussion or a combination of both. It is important that the participants reach consensus on as many recommendations as possible. Recommendations will result from these discussions.

Following the symposium, the Project Coordinator will summarize the results of the two day symposium.

44 Appendix D

Summaries of the symposium will be circulated to the participants and they will be given an opportunity to correct specific content or add comments. The end result will be a monograph of the symposium proceedings. This monograph will be circulated to participants, funding agencies and the identified target groups (if applicable).

Submission Guidelines

Submission Content

Each participant will be provided with a specific set of QPIs (a maximum of 4). Participants are requested to prepare a response to each of the QPIs (see page 7), limiting each response to a maximum of 2 pages (see formatting guidelines below). Each participant is also asked to present an additional 2-page summary on a specific aspect of mitigation in general, or more specifically related to the design, development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada.

The total expected submission, therefore, will be limited to no more than 10 pages.

The focus of the submissions should reflect the third objective for the symposium: To present a conceptual framework for consideration of mitigation strategies within the context of:

1. eliminating the hazard;2. reducing the risk of a hazardous event taking place;3. reducing the consequences of a hazardous event; and,4. spreading the risk

The QPI's are important issues and we realize that a great deal of research exists to substantiate the importance of these items. We now need to provide the impetus to move forward into action mode. Therefore, in the responses to these QPI's, we are looking for practical and reasonable recommendations relating to the question, problem or issue presented.

Formatting Guidelines

In order to facilitate the compilation and presentation of the consolidated submissions, we request that the following formatting guidelines be followed:

• use a standard 8 Vi x 11 inch page format ■ • use single spacing only• use Times New Roman 11.5 pitch font • set right and left hand margins at 1"• set top and bottom margins at 1"


Ensure that your name' and contact information is clearly marked on the cover of your submission, that your last name is entered in the footer of each page of your document and that page numbers are included in the footer.

Submission Process

We will require an electronic copy of all documents submitted. These documents should be in Microsoft Word 7.0 format (or earlier) or a compatible format. Electronic versions can be submitted on 3.5" diskette or by e-mail to [email protected].

Full contact details for Pamela Hollington are as follows:

Mailing Address:

Pamela HollingtonDisaster Preparedness Research Centre University of British Columbia 2206 East Mall, 4th Floor Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3

Phone: (604)988-4102Fax: (604)988-8169E-mail: [email protected]

Timeline and Important Dates

As we mentioned earlier, the timeline for this project is aggressive. Therefore, we have developed a structured approach for project activities that will allow us to meet the target dates and successfully achieve the project objectives.

We started this project in mid-July 1997. Our distribution of Participant Guidelines (this document) is to be completed by the middle of August 1997 .

We request that all participants have their submissions delivered to the Project Coordinator (Pamela Hollington) no later than October 5,1997 .

The position papers will then be compiled and consolidated for distribution in summary form to all participants. This distribution will be complete by October 31,1997 .

The Mitigation Symposium will take place in Vancouver, B.C. from Thursday, November 27, 1997 {evening reception) through end of day on Saturday, November 29, 1997 . We request

46 Appendix D

that all participants make themselves available for the entire duration of the symposium as we will need focused contributions from every member to ensure the program is successful. (Detailed directions and location of the event along with the agenda will be forwarded to you closer to the date of the event.)

After the symposium, the contributions, discussions, and recommendations will be consolidated and documented for distribution. The intent of this distribution is to allow participants to correct any content errors that may have occurred (Note: we will not be adding any additional content during this stage of the project!). This draft monograph will be available to participants by December 19,1997 .

Due to the project deadline of January 26, 1998, we request that all participants review the draft monograph and provide any necessary changes to the Project Coordinator no later than January 9,1998 .

The final monograph will be available for distribution to all participants by the end of February, 1998

APPENDIX E

COLLECTION OF RESPONSES TO QPIs

Building Safer Communities

Identify and promote cost-effective approaches so new structures can be built safely, existingstructures retrofitted to better withstand future catastrophes, and so that communities areresilient before, during and after disasters. Consider sustainability and the notion of the

"healthy community."

Q# QPI1 Consider issues regarding high-risk areas (flood-plains, landslides, etc.). Include

discussion regarding the relocation or retrofitting of homes located in such areas.2 Consider the issues related to sustainability of infrastructure and buildings during

and after a disaster that focus on the functionality of the structure after the disaster.

3 Discuss the benefits and problems surrounding the idea of a national insurance program. Consider and discuss: • The socioeconomic and cultural issues that affect peoples' willingness to purchase insurance « Who would pay for such a program, but who would benefit.? • Would participation be mandatory or voluntary? • The scope of participation (homeowners, small business, corporations, local, provincial, federal governments)?

4 Discuss the issues related to the new demographics of highly focused, highly populated areas.

5 Do specific hazards necessitate separate, focused strategies (e.g., wildfire urban interface, pest infestation, etc.)? How will priorities be arrived at for such special programs (historical data, current levels of property damage, risk of loss of life and injury)?

6 How can we incorporate a national vision of land-use development in order to reduce the risk from disaster, while respecting the autonomy of local governments? (Consider zoning for high-hazard areas, etc.)

7 What is the effectiveness of non-structural mitigation and how could a national strategy encourage/address non-structural mitigation?

Building Safer Communities: QPI #1 51

QPI#1

Consider issues regarding high-risk areas (flood-plains, landslides, etc.). Include discussion regarding the relocation or retrofitting of homes located in such areas.

RESPONDENT: John Newton

Possible issues worthy of discussion:

1. The people living in these areas do not perceive there to be a risk, thus -a) They are not driven to act; and,b) They do not exert political pressure on various levels of government to act.

2. In some instances these people may be right. They may have evolved coping mechanisms thatallow them to easily mitigate the threat when it does occur. This is especially true in smallercommunities and isolated outposts where coping skills have not been eroded by urbanization.

3. The identification of a "high-risk area" may be externally applied by 'experts' who applyobjective criteria (i.e. water height). Locals may see things differently. This then becomes anissue of perception. One of humanities' best (and most problematic) traits is the adaptability ofthe species. Those who adapt see the situation differently from those who have not. Actions, toreduce exposure to a flood for example, require a set of values, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptionsthat are consistent with those actions. Actions will only be consistent with the perception of risk.

4. Technical and physical answers are available. They will not solve the problem (i.e. flood,landslide). As Quarantelli has observed disasters are social phenomena. "Moreover, a naturaldisaster, in a pure sense does not exist; rather there is the interaction of changes in physicalsystems with existent social conditions. Disasters are therefore more accurately seen as socialphenomena. The implications of rethinking 'natural' disasters as having social causation is, inQuarantelli's (1989) view, fourfold:

i. mitigation of disasters must stress social rather than physical approaches; ii. these approaches must place emphasis on pro-active rather than reactive actions; iii. such actions need to focus on internal flaws in society rather than external forces; and, iv. reduction of vulnerability to disasters must be integrated as part of ongoing policies and programs of societal development."

How then, do we deal with social phenomena to reduce losses? This then become an issue of the sociology of human groups and the psychology of individuals.

5. What about the relocation of buildings seen to be at risk? Three questions arise immediately -Does the owner want to move? If yes, where to? And, who pays? Consider the social issues

surrounding the establishment of Peawanuk, Ontario after the devastation of Winisk.

52 Appendix E

6. Is relocation a real problem in Canada given years of conservation efforts and flood plainmapping? Do we consider buildings behind dykes to be "at risk"? Perhaps the growth areas arethose buildings that "become at risk" due to upstream changes to the watershed and those thatare built in risky locations due to the economic value of the location. Consider existing and newbuildings differently:

• Existing building are phased out with compensation. Perhaps the permitted use ischanged to non-inhabitable, and structures are demolished or moved;

• New buildings are controlled by zoning, official plans, and building permits.

7. For retrofitting: Who pays? What structures are worth retrofitting? To what extent does (stilts toavoid water?) this becomes threat-specific?

8. Some regional (earthquake) and weather (hail, wind) threats are location-specific while othersare not dependent on location. In this way the question (#1) is specific to some threats. Do wewant a mitigation strategy to be threat-specific or comprehensive, or both?

QPI#1 RESPONDENT:

Blaine Rapp

In Canada communities seem to have been located in high risk areas all throughout our history. These areas have always been the most attractive to build and live on. This is especially true with flood-plains. Just look at the recent problems in and around Winnipeg, or to the past when the whole community of Aklavik was relocated to Inuvik because of the constant flooding of the community.

Other specific examples include building in green belts, on slopes/cliffs, on unstable ground, etc. All of these areas could be considered high risk areas.

Retrofitting and/or relocation of homes in high risk areas is an interesting topic. In the case of retrofitting homes, why would we consider this when we know there is a hazard? Are we condoning the risk? Are we making ourselves more liable? Why would people want to relocation to less desirable land? Who should reimburse the land owners and at what cost in the way of land value; before or after the risk was identified?

Providing new building standards/zoning restrictions for new development would be acceptable.Who would pay for the mitigation? Governments/homeowners?Should governments take high risk lands off the market or put a special designation on them for landuse? If so who would pay for these lands? Can the land be expropriated? Who would determine thevalue of the land and when?If we are to use these high risk lands; what would constitute proper land use?What role, if any, should the insurance industry play in this area?How can we work with them to ensure fair and equitable premiums?Should the insurance industry pay out claims to retrofit homes located in high risk areas?With the increase demands for land use, how can we ensure that high risk lands, if used at all, aredeveloped appropriately?


QPI #1

RESPONDENT: Alan Ruffman

Floodplains

In specifying "high risk" areas the question implies that we know where these are. In general we do, though clearly the Saguenay floods of August 1996 caught most by surprise — not only forecasters but also those who may have mapped the "high risk" areas. Generally however it can be said that, for most areas of Canada where there is a "high risk" of flooding from excess rainfall, there has been a previous flood within recorded historical time. Further, it can be safely said that, where such floods have not been serious, careful floodplain mapping will delineate the high risk areas. Modelling can assist.

Tsunami Runup Zones

In this case the zones of high risk are not as well known. Canada has suffered few serious tsunamis. However certain communities such as Port Alberni are known to be susceptible from its experience with the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake tsunami. While not a large event, modelling has shown that a large area of the community close to the fjord is at risk for significant inundation.

Hurricane Storm Surge Inundation

These areas are again not all known from previous experience because not all areas of Canada's coasts (or Great Lakes) have suffered the 100-year storm or even a significant storm. In the case of hurricanes, they come rarely enough that community and collective memories fade (so much so — seemingly — that in the July-August 1996 issue of the Canadian Geographic the special Natural Hazards map of Canada did not show hurricanes other than the one hurricane (Hazel) that severely affected Central Canada). However areas of susceptibility can be easily mapped from topographic maps. The area of inundation for a large event like the Saxby Gale requires a greater effort.

What then is the responsibility of governments, town councils, insurance companies, and society in general, let us say in the cases of high risk with respect to flooding from rain, rapid snow melt (or both), tsunamis, or storm surge? Do nothing and simply clean up and compensate the victims?

An enlightened society would say, do more to prevent the flood or to prevent the flooding from costing lives, doing damage, or drowning livestock. Clearly there are limited means for governments to stop the flooding — Nature will have its way. However there is surely guidance in the response of the various conservation authorities in the Metro Toronto area after Hurricane Hazel whereby the many small catchment dams made the watersheds of the Humber River safer for the next hurricane's rainfall.

Governments have been hesitant to evict people and homes from river floodplains. However if we do not do it, surely Nature will — and with lives lost! There is a gentler way. Firm 50- and 100-year floodplain zone limits can be mapped and enshrined into zoning bylaws. No new infilling and no new structures can be permitted in these floodplain zones and no reconstruction of structures after damage to a 50% level can be permitted. Thus if a building is badly damaged in a flood or by fire, it just plain

54 Appendix E

does not get rebuilt in the floodplain — certainly a residence or factory would not get replaced, whereas outbuildings or silos etc. might be permitted the option to rebuild.

Once these zones are set up and clear, the insurance industry could join in and set a. clock ticking and make it clear that no structures will receive flood insurance if they are still located inside the defined floodplain boundaries after a period of 20 years — i.e. a good full generation.

Now this approach is going to work with small defined flood zones — what about the vast Red River floodplain, downtown Fredericton, N.B., Richmond, B.C., or Port Alberni's downtown? One is not going to easily move any of these areas. It is probably quite unreasonable to exclude all homes and buildings from the area of the 'Red Sea' of the Spring of 1997 in Manitoba; the fertile farmland is just too valuable and we can't ask farmers to commute two hours or to live in tents. Thus certain dyked communities are in order — but do we put public dollars into individually dyked homes? Here in the Red River Valley and in places like the Bay of Fundy's upper reaches it will always be a judgement call. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there are fewer pressures and the areas are not vast so one should be able to zone populations out of the areas under a high risk of hurricane or other storm surge flooding. In the Red River 'Valley', or vast floodplain, there must be some, or several, dyked population centres.

Richmond, B.C. and other parts of the Fraser Delta pose a much more vexing problem. Here we clearly know that flood, earthquake, and even a tsunami from an offshore slump pose a huge hazard. This I leave for the Symposium to grapple with (as I do landslides, snowslides, forest fires, etc.).


QPI#2

Consider the issues related to sustainability of infrastructure and buildings during and after a disaster that focus on the functionality of the structure after the disaster.

RESPONDENT: Faye Goodwin

Canadian Housing: Over the past 50 years, the housing philosophy in Canada has been to promote good quality, affordable housing with emphasis on safety and health (e.g. structural integrity, wiring, approved building products). Housing has been built not to fail during normal conditions, however disaster mitigation has generally not been a consideration with respect to building codes, products and standards.

There are, however, some notable exceptions. For example, the National Building Code of Canada (NBC) does address earthquake design for buildings and also standards for wind resistance. The philosophy as regards earthquake design is that buildings should be able to resist moderate earthquakes without significant damage and major earthquakes without collapse. The objective is to reduce the probability of fatalities but also to accept some structural damage in major earthquakes. Consequently, while the structure may remain, the cost of refurbishing could be prohibitive and as such the functionality is significantly impacted or in fact lost.

Another example is in the area of wind damage mitigation. The NBC code identifies some regions as requiring special measures for wind pressure. However, the determination of regions or zones is based on historic wind patterns, and further, the measures are intended to reduce damage from high winds and not those experienced in the path of a tornado. There is other legislation, that attempts to add durability/sustainability to housing, including CSA requirements for tying-down mobile homes. Again this measure may have minimal effect in a tornado, as has been demonstrated in many recent disasters. Enforcement of standards in this area is also difficult.

Similarly, given the potential for large conflagrations following an earthquake, in areas where gas is common, building integrity with respect to fire resistance should be considered important in mitigating losses from an earthquake. However, the national standards for fire safety do not contain special provisions for earthquake-prone regions.

While regulations, codes and guidelines are aimed at addressing structural integrity of buildings and infrastructure, no amount of special measures will be sufficient if the structure is in the path of a wall of water, as occurred in the Saguenay. In other words, sustainability is a non-issue. In other instances (perhaps a major industrial accident) buildings may be structurally sound however the effect on the environment might require evacuation or of an area thus eliminating functionality. Notwithstanding, the numerous regulations, codes and guidelines in place, a coordinated effort to specifically address mitigation appears to be lacking.

56 Appendix E

Jurisdiction: It is important to understand that the National Building Code (NBC) is a code of minimum regulations for public health, fire safety and structural adequacy with respect to public interest. It provides guidance in construction of residential structures, however, constitutionally, regulation of buildings in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial, governments and consequently adoption, use and enforcement of the NBC varies by jurisdiction. As the role of the federal government in this area is one of advocacy, changes or enhancements to the NBC would require the support of provincial/territorial governments and municipalities to be most effective.

Given the complex and at times conflicting system of regulations, standards and codes, combined with issues of enforcement and jurisdiction, a new more flexible and integrated approach, one which eliminates overlaps and operates at the point of intersection between jurisdictions, must be explored.

Built environment: There is a large inventory of existing housing and other structures across Canada that have not been constructed with disaster mitigation in mind. Consequently while developing standards for new construction is important, measures to improve the sustainability and functionality of existing structures is equally, if not more, important.

Renovation and Retrofitting: Since the early 1970s, there has been a large growth in residential renovation activity. This segment of the industry is generally unregulated and consists of small, unsophisticated firms or "do it your-selfers". Standards for quality and legislated warranty programs for renovation do not exist and, in general, codes for new construction cannot be imposed on renovation without redundancies, waste and/or difficulty. Further, in some cases, renovation can weaken the original structure and as such sustainability is affected. Any attempt to implement standards within this segment of the market will require a communications and information strategy directed at home/building owners as well as the trades.

Sustainable Development: The notion of sustainable development has become an important issue in housing. It can be defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Economy, society and environment must be integrated into community design in an effort to encourage sustainable living practices. Environment, in the context of sustainable development, does not appear to include hazard identification or risk analysis, from either natural or technological causes. However, such events could have serious consequences on community life and the environment affecting the safety and well-being of residents.

Affordability: Affordability and location are major considerations with respect to housing choice. While there may be merit in considering an all-hazards approach to construction, the cost associated with measures required to upgrade existing standards and practices must be measured against the probability of increased functionality during or after an event. Of course, an equally critical requirement for successful implementation of an all-hazards approach is consumer assessment of risk. Given historic data in this regard, it is suggested that an all-hazards approach would be very difficult to promote. For example, affordability is a significant factor in the design of mobile homes. While units could be strengthened to better withstand wind and other natural hazards, this could have a significant impact on cost and the decision to purchase a mobile home is typically based on affordability. Affordability or the availability of capital affects many other decisions. In the absence of funding, the alternative to upgrading and renewal of capital-intensive physical measures at times


has been to impose more regulations and advisory actions, such as restrictive land use and zoning regulations.

Functionality: Functionality in housing could refer to the ability of a structure to provide shelter, not necessarily to the original standard. For example, following a flood it may no longer be practical to re-finish basement space as living space. However, after implementing appropriate clean-up procedures it could remain functional for storage and as the building foundation. Similarly, accommodation built for the high-end market may change to housing for less affluent residents after an earthquake. In both cases, there is continued functionality even though there is a change in use. Functionality need not refer only to the physical structure. Following any incident where water damage has occurred, if appropriate clean-up measures are not implemented quickly the health of residents could be seriously affected and eventually it may become necessary to completely retro-fitted or alternatively abandoned the property or site.

QPI #2 RESPONDENT: Dexada

Jorgensen

In the National Building Code, structures are rated at different levels of importance factor for the earthquake hazard. Current ratings are: buildings at 1.0, schools at 1.3 and post-earthquake structures at 1.5 importance factor. This means that given that at 1.0 buildings are designed to withstand collapse and at 1.5 importance factor, buildings are operational after such an event. Telecommunication offices are in the last category of 1.5. (1.3 meaning 30% greater, 1.5 meaning 50% greater).

The Code does not take into consideration the 'location' of buildings and that location relative to other hazards such as floods, slides etc., nor does the code specify that previously built buildings be retrofitted to meet the current standards. It is up to the individual agencies/ industries to not build in a flood plain or other 'localized hazardous' area and to address any retrofit or upgrades to existing structures. It is my understanding that in the lower mainland there are some old schools that do not meet the latest standard. As the financial structure for schools is very different from industry, this may be the area that needs to be addressed.

For telecommunications offices, BC TEL has undertaken an extensive program for seismic upgrade to major telecommunication offices in the high risk seismic zones (zones 4, 5 and 6). BC TEL has aggressively addressed the structure and major non-structural components issues since the early 1970s. The current 10 year seismic upgrade program started in 1992 brings major telecommunication offices up to the 1990 NBC and 1995 NBC levels. With our upgrades, we have also implemented provisions for infrastructure sustainability - with shielding and flexibility for cabling, and as required water reservoirs for chilling/air conditioning.

For any business that exists in any hazardous area, it is only common business sense to prepare for and mitigate from the prevalent hazards for the area in which they operate. In Canada, specifically in BC, the infrastructure far exceeds that of many other countries for a number of reasons, not the least

58 Appendix E

of which has been because most infrastructure has been monopolies. As the only provider of a service, mitigation and restoration are of prime importance.

With respect to the functionality of structures after a disastrous event, we need to look at two areas: location of buildings with respect to potential hazards and retrofitting of older structures and older infrastructure to a level consistent with its current and proposed (post-event) use.

QPI#2 RESPONDENT: Hans J.

Rainer

Sustainability of infrastructure and buildings during and after a disaster is closely related to how much attention and effort has been expended on making these installations resist the hazard. It is perhaps not widely recognized that past and current practice of designing facilities and buildings against earthquake disaster do not produce "earthquake-proof installations. Rather, a certain level of damage, ranging from cosmetic all the way to total economic loss, are possible outcomes of these designs and constructions. Certain types of installations, called "post-disaster" buildings are accorded more strength than ordinary buildings, but that alone does not assure functionality after a disaster. Among such buildings are hospitals, police stations power stations, and emergency shelters. It is therefore clear that after a major earthquake, many damaged and non-functioning buildings can be expected, even among those that have been designed according to recent building codes.

The situation is possibly less encouraging when it comes to infrastructure services. While recent efforts in assessment and retrofitting have been made by utility companies and transportation agencies, there is no certainty that the facilities will function and be usable and thus provide the "life-lines" that our modern urbanized life requires. Recent earthquake experience in California and Kobe, Japan has clearly pointed to some further needed improvements. There is a general need for appropriate design and construction guidelines and codes and standards for infrastructure facilities to resist seismic motions.

At the same time there were also successes in the performance of buildings where proactive measures have been taken. Perhaps the most dramatic success story of pro-active measures has been the performance of the Winnipeg flood water diversion channel during the 1997 Red River floods. Appropriate preparation measures can pay off!

With the improved understanding of the nature of natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes comes the need to implement these improvements in our design practices by way of codes and standards. It is no exaggeration to say that we can design and build for sustainability. But, as usual, there is a trade-off between performance and cost. Are we willing to pay the increased costs, however little that may be, for greater assurance of sustained performance of infrastructure and buildings? Risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses would help in making such choices.

Current development of "objective-oriented " building codes may also help in clarifying the levels of performance that can be expected in an event such as an earthquake. The designer will be able (or

Building Safer Communities: QPI #2

59

will need) to choose among "minimum requirements" with possible major damage but adequate life safety, to "superior", where functionality after an earthquake could be expected, along with the accompanying cost implications.

Perhaps a realistic insurance scheme, where the premiums are adjusted to the level of expected performance, can be the final motivator towards better performance of our infrastructure and buildings during and after a disaster.

60 Appendix E

QPI#3

Discuss the benefits and problems surrounding the idea of a national insurance program. Consider and discuss:• The socioeconomic and cultural issues that affect peoples' willingness to purchase insurance• Who would pay for such a program, but who would benefit?• Would participation be mandatory or voluntary?• The scope of participation (homeowners, small business, corporations, local, provincial, federal

governments)?

RESPONDENT: Helene Denis

The socio-economic and cultural issues that affect peoples willingness to purchase insurance

This discussion will be more about insurance against natural hazards than technological disasters, although the difference between the two is tenuous, a natural hazard frequently being the event precipitating a technological disaster. Not much knowledge exists about the technological risks in a community, as we do not have laws about risk communication like the Seveso directive in Europe, Corporate responsibility, in our case, is assumed to be the only form of insurance against such risks. The problem, of course, is when the owner of the equipment involved is a small business with no way to pay for the disaster, which means that the whole community has to absorb the costs. From this perspective, the discussion becomes quite similar to the one on natural hazards.

The major factor in insurance purchase is the perception of risk. This perception depends first on one's evaluation of the probability and consequences of the risk, and second on the evaluation of the probability of having to pay for these consequences oneself. Risk perception is a subject which has been widely studied. The risks people fear most, and consequently for which they will probably be more ready to purchase insurance, are risks which are not controllable, exposure to which is involuntary, and the consequences of which are catastrophic .

If a person feels subject to danger, then he or she is more prone to look at means of protection, one of them being to purchase insurance (others might be the structural reinforcement of the house, for example, or preparation for emergencies; in fact , all kinds of mitigation measures). In all these behaviors, people are willing to spend money in order to protect themselves against the negative consequences of a hazard. Let us take the lessons to be drawn from the fire hazard as an example. Fire can occur at any time, with very serious consequences, so one of the first steps to take is to be insured against the threat. In addition, however more and more people are at the same time buying fire-extinguishers (sprinklers in the case of public buildings). And they regularly sweep their chimneys (required by law in some places). More than that, they have started to install smoke-detectors (again, required by law in some municipalities). All these steps have been taken successively, sometimes due to the pressures of insurance companies and municipal governments.


Now, what about natural hazards as such? We are faced with these less frequently, so we tend to think that we will not be affected by them. (My definition of a disaster is that it is the impossible happening suddenly). How many people are insured against earthquakes in Eastern Canada compared, for example, to the number insured in British Columbia? If an earthquake occurs in Quebec, then it is considered an act of God (in B.C. as well, although the probability of one occurring there is higher, according to scientific research on earth movements). Are we insured against the risk of an asteroid falling on our heads? Indeed, if we believe NASA scientists, this probability is much higher than we think (although, in such a case, there is not much we can do to prevent such an event). How, then, do we perceive our vulnerability?

Even when the hazard is well known and occurs more frequently, like flooding, there are problems. One of these is that the insurance companies will raise the cost of insurance in relation to the increase in probabilities. This means that, with no insurance, governments are once more in charge of paying for the disaster when it does strike, which brings us back to the perception of risk. Very often, the prevailing leit-motiv after a disaster seems to be it will not happen again . Whether wishful thinking or otherwise , this is a factor which can discourage the purchase of insurance (adding to the rising costs after a disaster).

Finally, even though this question of insurance may be closely linked to the way a risk is perceived, no link between perceptions and behaviors has been found in research on the subject. And it must not be forgotten that the perception of the benefits of a technology is also to be taken into account.

Who would pay for such a program, and who would benefit?

The above discussion about insurance costs rising with the risk probability brings with it the need to enlarge our view of an insurance program and realize that its basic principle, whether private or public, is for the many to pay for the few. But, more and more, there is a penalty to be paid by people living in high-risk areas, which is to say that other means for mitigation must be looked at, like legislating against building in these areas. This is because, in the end, a whole community ha s to pay (either in insurance fees or in after-disaster costs) for the decisions of a few, who had decided, often knowingly, to live in a high-risk area for other benefits like proximity to a river, scenery, etc. Municipalities also have a vested interest in favoring such situations: the taxation level is generally higher in these more attractive areas. I am not talking here about older locations in which it was safe to live in the past, but rather mostly about relatively new housing developments. In such a situation, the question is the following: Is it an acceptable risk for the many to pay for the few? I leave the question open for discussion.

In terms of technological hazards, the discussion can be the same, particularly when the owner of the equipment involved is not solvent. Technological disasters do not only happen to Exxon or to big companies, as we discovered with, among others, the St-Basile PCB fire and the St-Amable used-tire fire in Quebec, and the Hagersville, Ontario, fire. When the owner, like CP or CN in the case of some train derailments, takes responsibility, then the insurance problem is less significant.

62 Appendix E

Would participation be mandatory or voluntary?This discussion about voluntary participation in private insurance can be applied to public insurance as well, if voluntary. Of course, it is different if this participation is mandatory. More than anything else, one must carefully consider who pay s and who benefits, in such a case, There is a very important human action component in what is called natural disasters, even if it is mixed with other elements in a type of chain reaction .

The scope of participation (homeowner, small business, corporation, or local, provincial or federal government)I think that participation must be individual, but with strong incentives in the field of mitigation measures. The model here can come from the insurance industry, with its mitigation incentives. Giving the responsibility to governments could well tend to make people less active in mitigation. By contrast, the role of governments could be to enforce these mitigation measures, like firefighters do in certain municipalities. But this costs money and time, and more and more governments at all levels are tending to abandon these areas of responsibility.

QPI#3 RESPONDENT: Mary Fran

Myers

Insurance is deemed by many people a critical tool in the mitigation of damages from natural disasters. It must be remembered, however, that insurance in and of itself does nothing to reduce those damages, it merely serves as a means to spread the cost of recovering from those damages amongst a wider range of people. An insurance program that is operated by the government could be considered an oxymoron. Consequently, I would not recommend that it be considered a central part of a national mitigation strategy.

However, insurance can be an effective mechanism for promoting mitigative behavior amongst citizens and as such, a national mitigation strategy should contain elements that ensure the private sector provides coverage to losses from natural events. This requires that the private sector be allowed to charge insurance premium rates that are commensurate with the risk (which would enable them to give adequate premium reductions for people who took mitigative behavior to reduce their losses). In other words, premiums must be allowed to be actuarial and equitable—those at highest risk (e.g., on a fault or in a floodplain) pay the most.

People's willingness to purchase insurance is based primarily on its affordability and on people's perception to their risk to hazard. Since the latter is often very low, in order to ensure a broad enough basis to allow insurance to work as it should, participation should be mandatory. All entities, including individuals, governments, and the private sector should be required to participate.

In the U.S., except for the flood hazard, damages from natural hazards are covered by the private insurance industry. The industry is currently quite concerned about its potential liability in covering


losses from large earthquakes and major wind storms. As such, they have been very active in promoting mitigation efforts in a variety of ways (e.g., research and development on improved construction techniques; establishing premium rates based on how well a community enforces its building code, etc.). All these efforts have focused on non-flood issues. Since the industry has no vested stake in flood, they pay no attention to it. There have been repeated attempts to establish an all-hazards national insurance program in the US, modeled after the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This presents two major concerns to me: 1) in doing so, I believe the industry would stop all of its current efforts to promote good mitigation behavior as they would no longer have any financial reason to do so; and 2) though the NFIP has been in operation in the nation for almost 30 years now, there has not been a careful evaluation of this program to assess what impact it has actually had in the nation. For all we know, it might be the main contributing reason to why floods continue to be the most costly natural disaster that the US experiences.

QPI #3 RESPONDENT: John

Newton

Consider and discuss:

1. The socio-economic and cultural issues that affect peoples' willingness to purchase insurance2. Who would pay for such a program, but who would benefit.?3. Would participation be mandatory or voluntary?4. The scope of participation (homeowners, small business, corporations, local, provincial, federal

governments)?

When I think of hazards and insurance I think of floods as most other risks tend to be covered under regular (or extended) insurance policies. Was the word 'flood' left out? Are you proposing a national 'hazards' insurance program? I will assume not and focus on flood issues. What can we learn from the U.S. experience with flood insurance? The following is an overview of the flood insurance program in the United States. It has been excerpted from a paper prepared by John Newton, Jacquelyn Monday, and Mary Fran Myers.

"Flood policy in the United States prior to the mid-20th century was dominated by a structural approach. Levees, dams, reservoirs, and other engineered improvements were used extensively throughout the country to control flood waters and protect flood prone lands from inundation.

By the mid-1950s it was recognized that both damage from floods and the costs of providing structural protection were increasing. Disaster relief costs were rising as well. Some were beginning to see the need to consider alternative approaches to controlling flood damages. There was also a rising interest in flood insurance. The private insurance industry had never covered losses from flood damage because of the nature of the flood hazard. Congress considered and dismissed two different proposals to provide federally backed flood insurance in the 1950s, and serious consideration of the topic did not arise again until 1965 after a series of severe storms and hurricanes caused extensive damage on the Gulf Coast and Eastern seaboard (Ooms 1991:3-5).

64 Appendix E

At that time, two government reports, one prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and one by a task force appointed by the Bureau of the Budget, called once again for consideration of a federal flood insurance program (Moore and Moore 1989:70-72). Spurred by these reports, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968, creating the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP originally was designed to be a voluntary program whereby communities that agreed to regulate new development in flood prone areas would make their citizens eligible for low cost, federally subsidized flood insurance. A 1973 amendment to the Disaster Relief Act removed many of the voluntary aspects of the program. For example, the purchase of flood insurance was made a condition of any federally regulated mortgage. Communities that did not participate in the NFIP thus limited the availability of financing for their citizens who needed to borrow money to buy a house. The fundamental goals of the program are to: (1) provide affordable flood insurance to owners of existing development in flood prone lands; and, (2) promote wise use of floodplains by requiring local regulation of new development in flood prone areas. Both of these goals are pursued with an eye toward reducing the nation's flood losses.

The two goals of the program are linked in the way the program operates. The NFIP provides flood insurance only in communities that agree to adopt and enforce regulations that ensure that new development and substantial improvements to existing development in floodplains meet minimum performance-based standards designed to keep development free from damage in a 100 year flood. It was envisioned that all new floodplain development would be protected to a certain degree and that eventually, (in perhaps 50 or 60 years) the existing development in flood prone areas would have been replaced with properly constructed buildings.

In addition to the basic insurance/regulation part of the NFIP, other aspects of the NFIP have the potential for contributing to reduction of flood losses in the country. For example, parts of the program allowed for the acquisition and relocation of severely flood damaged structures. The NFIP's "Community Rating System" enables communities to reduce the flood insurance premium rates for their citizens by undertaking a wide range of floodplain management activities beyond regulation of development, such as education and awareness, floodproofing of buildings, and integration of warning systems — all of which can reduce a community's vulnerability to damage.

In the past 28 years the NFIP has had a profound effect on floodplain management in the country. Of the estimated nearly 22,000 flood-prone communities in the United States, over 18,400 (84%) now participate in the program (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force 1992:40; Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force 1994:16). Yet, the ability to state conclusively how effective the NFIP has been as a nonstructural mitigation tool is difficult. Some information is available that suggests the NFIP is not as effective as it might be (e.g., of the estimated 9-11 million structures located in floodplains in the United States only 25-30% have proper insurance coverage). But, without careful analysis of all aspects of the NFIP, one cannot state whether or not the program has met its original goals, or what aspects of the program contribute to or detract from flood loss reduction."


Now a few more specific comments on the four points mentioned in the question:

1. People must perceive a potential risk before they will consider insurance (or any other lossreduction actions). Insurance does not reduce the loss potential but rather redistributes the risk; itaddresses the earlier question of "Who pays?"

2. The insurance industry does not see a viable operation in flood insurance and only a marginalone in earthquake insurance. Is there merit in a governmental insurance program? It would notbreak-even. Who would benefit? - those who would get a higher payout for losses than thecurrent Disaster Assistance Program.

3. Voluntary in a free-hold situation, but must sign-off right of access to DFA funds. Mandatory forall structures requiring a loan. As in the U.S. linkage to the presence of a municipal emergencyplan is worthy of consideration.

4. All structures at risk, subject to (3) above.

66 Appendix E

QPI#4

Discuss the issues related to new demographics for highly focused, highly populated areas.

RESPONDENT: Edda Brown

It is evident that the trend, in Canada as it is in the United States, is to work and live in large urban centres. Whether these centres are located in high risk areas for natural disasters makes little impact on the decision of individuals to move there. While people may be aware of the risks associated with particular areas of the country, the fact that the area may not have suffered a major disaster in the past, the reaction of individuals is that it will not happen here.

Vancouver is an example of a city located in a high risk area. The city continues to grow. Residents are aware of the hazards. However, Vancouver has not suffered a major earthquake for some time. Through the cooperation of all levels of government, an awareness program has been successful in the province of British Columbia. The provincial government has developed an earthquake response plan and the federal government has completed a national earthquake support plan. The city of Vancouver has been proactive in such initiatives as establishing a heavy urban search and rescue team. To a large extent, these initiatives have had support due to the reactions to and lessons learned from recent major earthquakes in the west coast American cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

In Manitoba, the recent floods provided an example of another type of disaster we might face. In terms of mitigation, the city of Winnipeg was saved because of an initiative taken some years ago to build a 'ditch' to reroute the flooding river around the city. We may have other examples of mitigation efforts taken in other centres. We should highlight these efforts in trying to develop a national strategy.

Public awareness and education are the two most important elements of a mitigation strategy. Canadians tend to become complacent and think that disasters will not happen to them or in their lifetime. Unfortunately, natural disasters are occurring more frequently as the phenomenon of global warming becomes more evident.

All levels of government must take responsibility, as must the individual citizen, for a national mitigation strategy. If public funding for such a program is limited, private sectors must be convinced of the value of contributing to the effort.

Centres not located in areas of risk from natural disasters must be made aware of technological hazards. The potential for human-made disasters should not be overlooked. To some extent, safeguards are already built in to computer systems for example.

The challenge is to identify the hazards and the risks for all major centres in Canada and to develop a mitigation strategy that all can buy into.


QPI #4: RESPONDENT:

Helene Denis

I am not very knowledgeable about the specifics of demographic changes, but I will look at the problem of densely populated areas and, more precisely, at the particular situation presented by islands (like Vancouver and Montreal).

Highly populated areasThere are at least two elements to consider in connection with the residence factor; age categories and ethnic-language categories. They can be related, although, as I said before, I am not an expert on this subject. It seems to me that immigrants have larger families, meaning a younger population overall. The other thing that I see in Canada is that immigrants tend to keep their own culture and language, more than is the case in countries like France, for example (although this is changing in France as well). And they tend to live in cities. This brings us back to highly populated areas.

The inhabitants of these highly populated areas will be younger, and more culturally diversified than in other parts of a region. Now, what is the relationship with mitigation? First of all, if mitigation is closely related to risk perception, then the specificities of the various cultural groups that are in a particular area must be considered. What is their basic philosophy? If, for instance, a person is fatalistic, then this individual will not see the need for protection before something happens. The disaster is really, from such a perspective, an act of God. One must not forget that mitigation is part of our occidental heritage, in that we believe in the power of human action, of will, against the forces of nature (or of technology).

Before going further, I would like to add that mitigation must also be considered for hazards coming from abroad: Chernobyl is an example of this, and there are volcanoes in the U.S. that are nor very far from the Canadian border. I will try to answer the questions of the organizers of this symposium:

Eliminating the hazardThis is wishful thinking. There is no such thing as zero risk. More than that, hazards are constantlybeing added to the ones that already exist.

Reducing the risk or the consequences of a hazardous event.I will treat probabilities and consequences together because, even though they are not similar, theyare closely related.

In the case of epidemics, the role of the public health specialists is crucial, and they must be prepared to react quickly. In this case, mitigation consists in imposing rigorous controls at airports on people coming from endangered countries. Such measures can act contrary to the various laws protecting freedom of the individual, and sometimes it is not easy for experts to prove that a serious risk exists. The hazards related to bacteriology and immunology are certainly among the most import ant threats to humanity in densely populated areas at the present time.

In the case of natural hazards, mitigation consists in protecting buildings (both publicly and privately owned), in building shelters (see the discussion below concerning islands), in enforcing construction

68 Appendix E

codes (a code alone is not enough, needless to say), etc. Here again, these measures depend on risk evaluation.

In the case of technological hazards, mitigation can apply to the various phases in the life of a technology , i.e. to the design and construction phases, during operations, and in the final, disposal phase. Transport is also a source of hazard. The problem with densely populated areas is that the consequences of a disaster will be greater.

As I said before, this again depends on the perception of risk, and the compounding of the costs of mitigation versus the costs of a disaster. Perhaps here, more than anywhere else, the factors tending to make people blind to risk come into play: one ca n well prefer not to think about the transport of dangerous goods, for example. Another factor is familiarity with risk, as in the case where an industry has been operating in a specific area for a long time and nothing has happened in the past.

Spreading the riskI am not certain that I understand the meaning of this phrase. If by spreading , we mean the dissemination of equipment, then there is a risk of giving them less attention than when the risk is concentrated in one location. By contrast, concentration means more danger, particularly if incompatible products are involved. And I do not see how the risk of natural hazards can be spread.

Highly-populated areas: the case of islandsBeing a specialist in the field of disaster response, I am interested in islands, particularly densely populated ones, in terms of problems they represent for evacuation. Even if first responders, like police forces or firefighters, tell us that the re would not be any problem in evacuating, for example, Montreal, I seriously doubt that they are right (if only because I drive on the bridges linking the island to the mainland at rush-hour from time to time). This means that mitigation is especially important here, because, if a disaster strikes, it can well mean that not much can be done.

Mitigation in such a case can be understood in the sense defined by the organizers of this symposium, but it can also mean preparing for a disaster with shelters instead of implementing the traditional method of geographic evacuation that we are used to in Canada. In the case of some natural and technological disasters, for instance, shelters can certainly protect the population, as has been demonstrated by Switzerland. This means that every family must be taken care of, by governments, and directed to a specific shelter. This also means that the shelter has been well provided with the basic necessities.

Here, densely populated areas present risks of criminal activity as well, meaning more police forces prepared to react quickly. Even though scientists like to point out that people generally do not panic in disaster situations , contrary to popular belief, I am not certain that, in face of a serious threat, people will not run for dear life. In addition, in such a situation, the responsibilities of first-responders are not always clear, particularly when, like in Montreal, we have federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions acting at the same time.

For all these reasons, I think that mitigation, in the case of densely populated areas, whether islands or not, is an extremely important consideration.


QPI#4 RESPONDENT: Faye

Goodwin

National and Provincial Population Trends: The strong population growth rates of the late 1980s have begun to decline and should continue to do so in the absence of abrupt, major increases in immigration levels. Declining population growth is largely the product of an aging population.

Population growth is not evenly spread across Canada. Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia have been, and will continue to be, the fastest growing provinces, with BC leading the pack. By contrast, the remaining provinces tend to have growth rates below the national average. In short, the population of Canada has become increasingly concentrated in the three fast-growing provinces, a trend that is expected to persist.

Growth in Metropolitan Areas: Just over sixty percent of Canadians live in 25 census metropolitan areas (CMAs), nearly a third in the three largest, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. While population densities increased in all the large CMAs between 1986 and 1991 Vancouver recorded the highest growth rate, followed by Toronto.

While preliminary indications from the 1996 Census suggest that the strongest growth within most CMAs occurred in the suburbs, Vancouver experienced high growth in almost all municipalities within the CMA, including significant gains in the urban core.

Population and Household Diversity: Population diversity has increased and will likely continue to do so with high immigration levels expected to continue. Visible minorities in Canada rose from 1.6 million in 1986 to about 2.6 million in 1991. This figure is expected to rise to about 5.7 million in 2001, an increase of over 350 percent during the period 1986 to 2001.

Over the past few decades, the origins of immigrants has shifted dramatically. Where formerly the great majority of immigrants came from Europe, roughly half of recent immigrants were born in Asia and less than a quarter in Europe.

The settlement patterns of immigrants are unevenly spread across the country, with Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver attracting roughly two-thirds of all immigrants to Canada. The proportion of immigrants in the total population is much higher and growing more quickly in Toronto and Vancouver than in Montreal.

There is no longer a typical, or dominant household type. Between 1971 and 1991, one-person and single-parent households grew faster than any other type. Household sizes have been shrinking and will continue to do so, but not as rapidly as in the past. Trends suggest that there will be proportionately more one-person households (including elderly widows) and childless couples (including "empty nesters") in the future, and proportionately fewer young singles and couples with children.

70 Appendix E

Issues related to demographics:

Highly populated area: While a number of major urban areas are located close to fault lines, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver have the largest concentration of Canadians, located in areas identified as having a high potential for seismic activity. As these three cities and others primarily in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta continue to grow, the cost of major disasters affecting any of the them could have serious repercussions on the insurance industry and on the ability of government to provide adequate financial assistance.

Immigration: As many recent immigrants settling in the urban cores of cities speak neither English nor French, municipalities will be challenged to provide more information and services in a wider range of languages. Dissemination of information presents a particularly difficult problem during an emergency. It also poses a challenge to emergency preparedness programs with respect to disseminating information and education about potential hazards, risks, mitigation and appropriate measures. To meet the needs of the population, information and assistance (verbal and written) must be available in a range of languages - and this will result in increased demand for resources (financial and other). Depending on their country of origin, new immigrants may have differing views about disasters, be intimidated by persons of authority and refuse to respond to emergency instructions.

Infrastructure: Increased population and urban development in a number of cities will continue to strain municipal water and waste water treatment plants. Many are already operating at or near capacity and as such there is an increasing risk of emergencies and related recovery costs due to system failures (e.g. sewer back-up).

Financial: Continued growth in some large CMAs will result not only in more people living within the urban core but probably a greater concentration of commerce. Consequently, a major technological or natural disaster, such as a catastrophic earthquake in British Columbia which destroys port facilities, could have serious repercussions on the national economy. Costs associated with more vehicular traffic and potentially higher levels of pollution will also have financial impacts on these major centres. Overall, both natural disasters or major technological failures, particularly in large centres, will have serious financial repercussions not only for the municipalities affected but also for all levels of government as well as the insurance industry.

Land Use: Whether the increase in population occurs within the city core or suburbs, there will be pressure to develop residential areas closer to non-residential land (e.g. light industrial, highways, rail lines and airports) and perhaps on previously identified marginal or sensitive land (e.g. wetlands, flood plains). As development expands there is a potential for increased risk from unknown or unidentified technological hazards (e.g. hazardous material storage sites) and non-enforced standards and regulations (e.g. non-compliance with fire codes and WHMIS regulations). A secondary effect of redefining zoning classification, resulting in increased density within large urban cities such as Vancouver, will be the increased pressure on already limited emergency routes should a major emergency such as an earthquake occur.

Urban Core Demographics: Compared to outlying areas, the urban core of CMAs are home to relatively more seniors and fewer young people. Single-parent families and individuals living alone


are also overrepresented and there is more likely a higher tenant population, particularly of seniors and low income people. More households in the urban core earn less on average than those in the rest of the CMA and are more likely to be tenants than owners. It is reasonable to assume that tenants might have less control over safety and mitigation measures, relative to their accommodation, than homeowners.

Given the demographics of many large CMAs, there will be a conflict between the need to provide housing to accommodate the increase in population and funding the required infrastructure and services from a tax base which cannot support the expansion.

QPI #4 RESPONDENT:

Michael Salib

In Canada there are three highly populated metropolitan areas, viz., Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. One third of Canada's population resides in these areas. The issues related to these areas that need to be addressed when developing a national mitigation strategy, include:

• The different levels of awareness by the population as to the type of hazards that exist andtheir proximity or imminence.

• Generally, the three metropolitan areas are considered as the main destination of newimmigrants to Canada. The majority of recent immigrants to these metropolitan areas do nothave either of the official languages as their mother tongue, this introduces language andcultural difficulties, as well as, lack of knowledge and understanding of the roles andresponsibilities of the different levels of governments vis-a-vis the individual.

• The complexity, the skill levels to implement, and the high cost of prevention programs thatare needed to remove hazards or mitigate their effects. Prevention programs or activitiesaddress; risk assessments, land use planning and control through zoning or rezoning of

• existing areas, selection (or rerouting) of transportation routes, etc.

• The sophistication, effort and high cost of preparing these communities to adequately respondto disasters to reduce the consequences. Preparation activities include; emergency planning,tracking and monitoring of hazards, raising awareness levels, training of responsible officials,industry and volunteers, etc.

• The political will (at all levels of government) to expend efforts and funds to implementappropriate mitigation programs in Canada appears to be suffering from the NIMTOOsyndrome (Not In My Term Of Office).

72 Appendix E

The cost of emergency services in these communities [equipment, training, maintenance, etc.]. This raises the issue of the qualifications of emergency responders, emergency planners and others who are involved in the different phases of hazard mitigation. Although this issue has been discussed extensively during the past 20 years, no agreement on qualifications (skill levels) appears to be in sight. There is a need for a national accreditation and certification program for those who work in the mitigation field in Canada.

The complexity of communicating risk to populations in metropolitan centres.

Other difficulties which may arise during response operations include:

• alerting (in languages other than the official languages)

• selection of evacuation routes

• informing the public during disasters

• coping with increased numbers of casualties

• appropriateness of systems in larger complexes and buildings that have not been tested inactual disasters

• complexity of coordination of large scale response operations


QPI#5

Do specific hazards necessitate separate, focused strategies(e.g., wildfire urban interface, pest infestation, etc.)?

How will priorities be arrived at for such special programs(historical data, current levels of property damage, risk of loss of life and injury)?

RESPONDENT: Rick Clevette

The question asks whether specific hazards necessitate separate, focused strategies. The answer lies in the level of government being questioned.

At the national level, there is no specific requirement for separate, focused strategies. The federal government should provide overall direction, policy and processes that allow provincial and local governments to address specific mitigation issues. National policies (legislation?) must state that the intent of the federal government is to ensure that local governments set in place the necessary regional policies, plans, monitoring practices and public information necessary to address mitigation issues.

Federal legislation should not prescribe how local governments must address a specific issue, only that there be a specific strategy identified for each hazard. Federal legislation should ensure that local governments address specific hazards through the process of identifying, avoiding, reducing and mitigating natural and technological hazards. The outcome must be a locally driven initiative that is owned by the community.

The federal government must provide the legislation and baseline direction that allows the local government to find their own solutions. This ultimately ensures that the local government also lives with the consequences of their planning and program initiatives.

Once the federal government has identified the necessary legislation and policy direction for provincial and local governments, then they must follow through with a number of specific contributions.

On a national scale, the federal government must provide broad scale hazard and risk identification, outlining suggested approaches and measures that might be undertaken. This involves a very broad hazard identification and risk assessment that is regional in scope and identifies vulnerabilities, consequences, frequency and specific impacts of potential hazards. The federal government must ensure that it does not interfere with local initiatives and innovative approaches to hazard planning but should provide the local government with a desired outcome that ensures the health and safety of its citizens.

The federal government should also provide local authorities with technical assistance, planning advice and fiscal incentives for policy and planning preparation. This assistance may come in a

74 Appendix E

variety of ways including: training, community planning guides, public information (pamphlets and brochures), grants for simulations and exercises, communications technology etc. etc.

The final outcome of whether or not the federal government is able to convince local authorities to comply with federal legislation regarding hazard mitigation may well rest in the federal governments' policy on liability and compensation. The federal government may be able to provide further incentive to local governments to plan for and undertake mitigation measures if, in the event of a disaster, compensation forthcoming from the federal government is tied to the local governments' level of compliance with federal mitigation legislation. Although this may be difficult for the federal government to monitor, it will provide an incentive for the local government to undertake mitigation initiatives.

The three keys to a sound federal policy on mitigation are: strong technical support, resolution of legal and financial considerations and flexible interpretation of policies and legislated requirements. It is not based on separate, focused strategies specific to each hazard. If the federal government is able to provide support and interpretation in these three areas, then local government will accept the national vision.

At the provincial and local level, separate and focused strategies are important and should be identified. Within the context of provincial enabling legislation, the provincial government must provide the local governments with the necessary tools to ensure compliance with specific, identified mitigation strategies. The province should be working with the local authorities (having the benefit of the federal hazard and risk identification) to develop regional strategies and preferred options. The province must then be prepared to adopt explicit legislation that permits local governments to enact and enforce specific mitigation options (i.e.: defensible space surrounding a home built in the forest -defensible from wildfire).

Specific hazards do necessitate separate, focused strategies at the provincial and local level. It is within this context that priorities can be addressed considering the hazard, the risk, the consequences and ultimately the cost of mitigation.

QPI#5 RESPONDENT: Mary

Fran Myers

Generally, the answer to this question is yes and no. Some mitigation strategies are appropriate for all types of hazards. For example, the processes of preparing for, and warning about, specific hazard events have much in common. Whether it be a wildfire, earthquake, or flood, emergency managers need to have systems in place to alert the affected population and methods to respond quickly (e.g., providing shelter, restoring critical lifelines) to limit potential loss of life. As another example, the process involved in educating citizens about risk to hazards is similar across events. The words and the particular message that is delivered may be different depending on which hazard one is addressing, but the processes used to get the point across are similar.


When considering mitigation of future damage in advance of a particular event, generally, most hazards require separate strategies. There is a wide range of mitigation tools and some are more appropriate for certain hazards and sets of conditions than others. How they get applied depends entirely on where they are being applied. In high-risk areas (be they subject to floods, seismic hazards, or whatever), for example, that are fully developed the mitigation strategies selected are more likely to focus on retrofitting or providing structural protection than other methods. In areas where development is limited to begin with, mitigation can rely more on non-structural solutions such as land use planning, or relocation of at-risk structures.

Priorities for selecting mitigation strategies need to be based on localized vulnerability analyses that consider the risk presented by physical systems (i.e., environmentally extreme events), the social systems that are affected by risk (e.g., issues such as gender, ethnicity, and income disparity greatly affect how vulnerable a population is to disaster), and the constructed environment that may be impacted by a disaster (not only a simple inventory of buildings in a particular area, but an analysis of how critical they are to the population at large—such as hospitals or fire stations~and the condition of their structural integrity to withstand the forces of mother nature).

With good vulnerability analyses in hand, decision makers can weigh which strategies are most appropriate and most cost-effective in achieving the goals selected by the community.

QPI #5 RESPONDENT:

Grant Kelly

Response:

Some hazards do require separate focused strategies. However, a national mitigation strategy must proceed on an "all hazards" basis to make the most efficient use of limited resources but, the application of the "all hazards" approach requires that risk reduction measures be evaluated to achieve the best mix for a given location. For example, while consumer education is effective in mitigating all hazards, the messages have to be tailored to specific audiences and the risks they face.

Background

The participants of this symposium have been asked to design a national program to protect Canadians against hazards. Hazards are defined to include all natural hazards, all man-made hazards and diseases. Each of these three broad categories can be broken down into several dozen specific hazards. Resolution of each these issues is important, but we must recognise that any strategy developed to realise the vision we articulated will require a prioritisation to ensure that reforms provide Canadians with immediate and lasting benefits.

76 Appendix E

At IBC, our members have given us a strong mandate to create a program to mitigation catastrophic loss. Our first priority was to decide how to focus our efforts. The reason we found for this was that mitigation often involves a fixed payout for an uncertain reward.

Some of the criteria that we used to establish our priorities:

Probable Maximum Loss• There are some issues where the risk of loss is greater than other areas. Our efforts should begin

in those areas where the risk of loss of life and property is greatest. Our analysis revealsgeological hazards, particularly earthquakes, pose the greatest threat to Canadians and theCanadian economy.

Frequency• The more frequent that a particular hazards results in a catastrophic loss the greater emphasis

that this hazard should receive. Since, IBC began collecting data in 1984; hail has proven to bethe most frequent cause of catastrophic losses. For our purposes, a catastrophic loss occurs whensingle event results in one percent of total insurance claims occurred in a province. No man-made hazards have reached this level since 1984.

Begin with issues where we have a consensus• Development of a National Mitigation Program is likely to be evolutionary rather than

revolutionary. Success will require building on early success and building consensus. Thisprocess of building consensus is further advanced with some issues than with others. By givingthose issues priority, we are more likely to achieve meaningful long- term success in the reformprocess.

Work within the existing constitutional framework• To the extent possible, improvements will be sought within the current division of powers

between federal, provincial and territorial governments and our industry.

We have chosen to confine our efforts to issues regarding natural hazards. If this work proves successful, we can build on it to include man-made hazards. (Although we do not have any plans to expand this effort in the near-term.) We feel that it is more important to do a few things well than to try and cover too many items the best we can. We recognise that man-made hazards are very serious and that other parties have a mandate to reduce all hazards, but we feel that hazard mitigation in Canada needs to grow by building on our successes. The areas of mitigating man-made hazards are already a large part of the commercial-lines underwriting and risk management process. We decided to focus our efforts on those areas where we can make the greatest difference.

There is precedent for this decision. The very first line in the US National Mitigation Strategy refers to natural hazards. France also has a National Program that deals specifically with natural hazards. The US program recognises that risk reduction strategies must be evaluated to achieve the best mix for a given location and the principle that mitigation of natural hazards should not make a community more vulnerable to man-made hazards. Another principle of the US Strategy is that it must proceed on an "all hazards" basis to make the most efficient use of limited resources. The insurance community supports this approach and believes that an all-encompassing hazard


mitigation approach should be fostered at the national, state and individual community levels. It must be noted that in those countries that have mitigation program there has been a distinction between natural and manmade hazards.

ConclusionsAt IBC, we have chosen to focus our efforts on reducing the loss of life and property that result from earthquakes and severe weather. For our purposes, severe weather includes hail, flood and wind. I would recommend that we focus our efforts in mitigating losses from natural hazards. Most mitigation measures that take place will also reduce the risk posed by man-made and disease should be treated separately. The key is to start a process.

QPI #5 RESPONDENT: Alan

Ruffman

Specific hazards wherever possible should draw focused mitigation strategies. This only makes sense in a cash-strapped society. Certain natural hazards cannot be eliminated. Humans are not going to ever control destructive earthquakes, hurricanes, or winter storms, excessive rainfall events, or the rate of snow melt in North Dakota and southern Manitoba. At least if anyone thinks that they can, it is safe to say that society would refuse permission for the experiment. There are suggestions that one could use deep drillholes along locked portions of the San Andreas fault zone to introduce water progressively along the fault plane and to so lubricate it progressively, allowing strain release to migrate along the fault with a series of small and non-destructive earthquakes rather than waiting for "the big one". However the real risk of being accused of causing a resultant, or even a fortuitous, damaging event would prevent such an experiment from ever getting liability coverage or environmental approval.

Controlled burns of old and diseased forests may be tried to eliminate, or to reduce, forest fire risk, but more likely public opinion will lead to targeted cutting to create fire breaks, especially in hilly or mountainous terrain. Certain dyking or ditching may reduce the risk of flood damage but it won't reduce the risk of a flood. Improved building codes will certainly reduce the risk of property damage from the force of winds from large storms but not tornados — one cannot build to prevent tornadoes, though clearly the use of trailers for housing in known areas of tornado risk needs to be assessed since they seem to be so susceptible to total destruction. Can one say to a population in a known tornado belt that this lower cost, affordable housing just will not be permitted?

Rather than prevention, the focus of strategies with respect to natural hazards must be to reduce the risk of serious and life-threatening consequences from the hazard. For floods we know that if families do not live in a high risk area, then they are not at risk. For earthquakes we probably cannot consider the exclusion of population from such zones — there are already large cities such as Victoria and Vancouver or Richmond at risk and society just will not easily be persuaded to move such a city. However we should remember that Nature may in effect teach us this lesson as it did in Kingston, Jamaica or off Alexandria where earthquakes caused large parts of these cities to submerge below sea level. Richmond, B.C. is on a delta that may slump and subside to eliminate large portions of the city.

78 Appendix E

For focused hazards like avalanches or mudslide zones it may be possible to eliminate the hazard by removing, or preventing, development or through the use of snow sheds and such shelters over parts of railroads and busy key highway links such as the TransCanada Highway.

How are priorities for mitigative action to be set? Clearly it is the danger to lives that must set the priority. In coastal British Columbia in places like Vancouver and Victoria there are large expenses involved to retrofit buildings or to eliminate and replace improperly built buildings. Kobe, Japan taught us the costs of inaction, and Kobe probably was much better constructed than the above cities. The necessary actions needed on the west coast will cost large sums over a phased program that may, or may not, be completed by the time the destructive earthquake hits.

In setting priorities for the lower mainland, does one set the same priority and level of expenditure for Vancouver as for Richmond, or does one say to Richmond "No, we will not publicly fund such retrofitting of your structures because we are not certain that they will work. Rather, we will fund the progressive and systematic relocation and removal of the city to turn it back to agricultural land"? Could the population of Richmond ever come to such an understanding or to the acceptance of such a judgement?

Populations at risk will probably also accept that priorities are set on the basis of risk to lives (their loved ones) rather than to property. During the Red River floods very few lives have been lost, though the damage to property has been large. The progressive exclusion of residences and development at risk, over say a twenty-year period — a generation — in areas of high flood, storm surge, or avalanche risk is relatively painless. Similar long-term exclusion of significant population around Mount Baker (at risk for a Mount St. Helens type of eruption), if put in place now, will not be an issue if constant public education explains the reasons.

However, backsliding and local governments that don't enforce such zoning and development bylaws can severely undermine the public's willingness to comply. Here provinces must be willing to learn and to enforce such measures.


QPI#6

How can we incorporate a national vision of land-use development in order to reduce the risk fromdisaster, while respecting the autonomy of local governments?

(Consider zoning for high-hazard areas, etc.)


A national vision for land-use development in order to reduce the risk from disaster can be realized while still respecting the autonomy of local governments. It is possible within the context of providing broad strategic direction to local governments.

The concept of a national vision for land-use development in order to mitigate the losses from natural or technological disasters is realistic if broad strategic goals are provided to local governments. A national perspective must be developed by identifying goals that support land development in a sustainable environment including regional social, economic and environmental objectives. It is the national vision that must advance the concept of sustainability and disaster mitigation.

Sustainable development must consider social, economic and environmental impacts and if a national vision of land-use development is to be proposed then it must incorporate a commitment to sustainable development. This strategic direction must be compatible with natural, cultural and economic resources and it must inherently recognize that in order to have a flexible, workable and doable vision, it must take into account sustainable development.

The national vision of marrying hazard reduction and land-use development can be accomplished by providing strategic statements that guide local land-use planning and preparation. Simple statements such as: "local governments must avoid land use decisions (development) that increase the risk of technological events", can be incorporated into the national land-use vision. If the development isn't sustainable in the context of minimizing or eliminating any risk as a result of an identified hazard then the development should not be approved, or specific mitigation objectives have to be adopted. For example, future development in an identified flood plain must be avoided unless specific mitigation objectives are built in. This would meet environmental concerns and still be sustainable.

It is imperative to acknowledge that mitigation is local. Mitigation must be based on consensus building, focused hazard and risk assessment and innovative approaches taken at the local level. The national vision for land-use development can advance and support local initiatives if it clearly identifies broad strategic land use goals in a sustainable environment. Local government retains the authority to set specific social, economic and environmental objectives for their regional land-use but they are guided by a national vision that land use must be sustainable and compatible with disaster mitigation.

80 Appendix E

Choices made by local authorities are obviously theirs to make. However, should the local government ignore the goals set out in the national mitigation and land-use development vision, they may find national support slow and in short supply.

Zoning for high risk areas based on a national zoning requirement is not the answer. The identification of the hazard and potential risk is a responsibility of the federal government; but identifying specific measures to be taken at the local level is not theirs to advocate. The national land-use document identifies that land use must meet certain sustainable development principles based on social, economic and environmental criteria. Regional land-use objectives must meet the national guidelines for disaster mitigation and sustainable development.

On a final note, it may be appropriate that in areas that have been identified as high hazard and high risk, local authorities are required to provide specific studies and evaluations on the measures and options open to them. The study must concern itself with the specific hazard identification, risk reduction measures and a land-use objective that incorporates the guiding principles of the national mitigation and land-use vision. Failure to provide this type of documentation prior to development would negate national compensation in the event of a major disaster.

QPI#6 RESPONDENT: Faye

Goodwin

Natural Disasters: Weather patterns are changing: traditional zones for droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe storms are shifting. It is unclear where future hazardous areas will occur. Current technology may be able to predict the location and timing of storms as they are evolving, but this does not translate into a proactive land-use strategy for avoiding hazardous areas in the long-term.

Established floodplains in settled river valleys and coastal zones are already well understood and mapped. Fifty-year flood lines and 100-year flood lines already have land use restrictions associated with them. Based on these restrictions, private property owners must assume a certain level of responsibility for the risks associated with their development decisions. Relief funds could be made available for unanticipated or unforeseen disasters as a result of climate change. A recent example of an unanticipated disaster is the Manitoba flood where water levels exceeded the flood protection levels previously identified. Distinguishing between planned and unplanned risks (or known and unknown risks) is fraught with difficulty.

It may not be feasible to prohibit urban development altogether in certain hazardous areas, such as "earthquake" zones (i.e. along fault lines). All around the world, the vast majority of the human race is settled close to, or directly on, fault lines (particularly in coastal zones). Mitigative measures in this area should be primarily technical (e.g. earthquake-resistant buildings).

While the insurance industry may not be able to cover the costs associated with a major earthquake in areas such as downtown Vancouver, the long-term opportunity costs of restricting development in these areas must be factored into the broader equation. Vancouver's harbour is not transferable to


another region, nor is the prime agricultural land in BC's interior (the Okanagan Valley). In a resource economy, location remains a city's primary comparative advantage.Implementing a hazardous lands policy in the form of development restrictions in existing areas could have negative impacts on property values. Compensation to existing property owners could become an issue and costs could be enormous.

Man-Made Disasters: There are a myriad of potentially dangerous economic activities and supporting infrastructure that cannot practicably be located completely outside the sphere of potential human contact in the event of a disaster (e.g. chemical plants, nuclear reactors, refineries, pipelines, hazardous waste facilities, municipal dumps, toxic waste dumps, etc.). A preventative strategy with respect to these kinds of installations could be based in part on zoning restrictions, but it would also have to be based on strict codes of conduct for the relevant industries/activities, controlled by permits and licenses, inspections, monitoring programs, enforceable with accountability, and so on. Any land use restrictions associated with potentially dangerous activities should not have the effect of transferring the responsibility or cost of safety from the owners of the activity/facility to municipalities, developers or consumers.

The above issue regarding proper codes of conduct is particularly true with respect to the transportation of hazardous materials, either by road, rail, sea or air. None of these modes of transportation is exclusively for the movement of hazardous materials and the relevant infrastructure necessarily intersects with crowded urban areas (at some point). The transportation of hazardous materials is more of a transportation safety issue than a land use issue.

Disaster mitigation from a land use perspective seems to conflict with the latest thinking on sustainable urban development. To conserve outlying areas, reduce transportation energy requirements and bring down municipal infrastructure costs, urban planners are now advocating denser, more compact communities, with a broad mix of different land uses. These planning principles tend to reduce overall distances between different sectors of the economy. They may also expose more people to a particular hazard and complicate reactive strategies, such as evacuation plans.

There is the potential to implement a preventative strategy, based primarily on technical solutions, in one particular area that has land use implications: the redevelopment of contaminated lands in inner-city areas. There are hundreds of contaminated sites in cities across Canada. Clearly establishing the rules and regulations for site remediation and/or pollution containment would be a proactive initiative.

The national land use vision: Before addressing the question of how to incorporate a national land use vision, we must articulate the "national vision" (recognizing that we all bring different personal and/or departmental view points). A number of questions must be addressed:

What types of hazards or disasters are to be included in the national vision of land-usedevelopment?How are priorities established and over what time frame? On the basis of loss of human life,federal funding spent in support of disaster response and/or recovery, level of risk orpotential for environment damage? It would be impossible to address all hazards initiallygiven limited resources.

82 Appendix E

What aspects will be addressed (regulations, mapping, communications) and are the actions compatible with the reality that often the valuable, most fertile and preferred locations are in areas identified as high risk?

Once defined, the key to incorporating a national vision is the recognition that (except on federal property) land use policies are legislated at the provincial level and implemented at the local or municipal level. The federal government historically has played an advocacy and advisory role and, if this policy is to continue, a national "vision" of land-use development in an urban context would have to take the form of guidelines.

Respecting the autonomy of local governments requires recognition that time spent on a land-use strategy, that does not involve discussion with provinces and is not supported by the intended client (municipalities), will have limited impact and effect. Municipalities, and most importantly, individual citizens and businesses, must see measures as relevant and have a value-added component. Consequently, to appreciate the dynamics of risk decisions relative to land-use, people must understand the potential hazards relative to their communities and environment and the trade-offs inherent in any decisions. We are not suggesting that significant progress cannot be achieved by federal resources taking unilateral actions. In fact, there are many areas within federal jurisdiction (e.g. environmental protection, storage of hazardous waste, interprovincial transportation routes) that can and should be tackled. However, for maximum value and impact, new partnerships between the public and private sector must be developed and those already existing must be supported.

QPI#6 RESPONDENT:

Blaine Rapp

Any national visioning process that may impact on the lower levels of government MUST include all of the governments (including First Nations where appropriate) in the development/ implementation/evaluation of the process in order for it to work. Non-government agencies and other stakeholders MUST also be involved. This is the only way to have it accepted by those it impacts.

Inclusion of all levels of government, as well as the stakeholders in the process, will ensure that the vision can be applied consistently all across the country; which is of paramount importance. If it is seen as being inconsistent, there will not be a full buy in on the vision.

The process of developing the vision must include a risk analysis segment that would assist in the identifying of high risk areas.

It must also include a realistic action plan with timelines and a commitment over the long term.

There must be an education program that will focus on awareness of hazards; how, why, when.

If we consider zoning, then the standards/guidelines must be consistently applied all across the country.


Should we restrict the type of development on these high risk hazard areas so as to reduce the risk? Should we condone any development on these lands at all? By doing so are we increasing our liability?

QPI #6 RESPONDENT: Chris

Tucker

Given that land use planning occurs at the municipal and regional level in Canada, developing a national vision is somewhat problematic. Nevertheless, a constructive approach might follow one adopted by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) in developing nationally consistent environmental standards, practices and legislation. The 13 members of CCME work as partners in discussion and joint action on environmental issues of national, international and global concern. Series of Guidelines and Assessment Handbooks are published by the CCME for use by local authorities and private corporations, especially as they concern the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program.

A similar approach could be followed to create "Guidelines for Land-Use Development". Compliance with the guidelines would be voluntary, but private (or public) insurance premium and disaster compensation incentives could be tied to their use. This is not an instant solution but could certainly be worked through existing mechanisms such as the Federal-Provincial Conference of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Preparedness.

At the local level, a programme of education and explanation would aid in the forming of consensus around the importance of mitigation through land-use development/planning (and enforcement).

84 Appendix E

QPI #7:What is the effectiveness of non-structural mitigation and how could a national strategy

encourage/address non-structural mitigation?

RESPONDENT: Scott Crowley

Disasters continue to take lives, inflict injuries, cause billions of dollars in property losses, and degrade the environment, as illustrated by this years flood in Manitoba,. Disaster victims are not the only ones who pay the consequences of living in areas exposed to hazards. Major disasters affect all Canadians by diverting resources from other important public and private programs and by reducing the productivity of the national economy. While progress has been made to varying degrees in mitigating the impacts of local hazards, a need still exists to improve the framework for the setting of long-term national goals; establishment of intergovernmental co-ordination and co-operation with the private sector; improvement of technical standards; and evaluation of progress in mitigation. A co-ordinated effort involving governments at all levels, the business and academic communities, and individual citizens can reduce the impact of natural hazard events on all levels of society.

When a crisis arises, it is too late to plan and implement an adequate response in the wake of confusion, emotional distraction, and muddled co-ordination. The safety of personnel and the viability of future operations may well depend on the effectiveness of mitigation or crisis management plan. This plan can provide the following:

• Adequate time to prepare an effective response before a peril strikes or a loss occurs

• An opportunity to investigate and select alternative responses to different possible situations

• Organization and training of personnel for appropriate crisis management responses

• Advance planning of co-ordinated efforts with outside public officials and agencies

Non-structural mitigation, a significant element of Risk Control, preserves resources for organizations and for society. It prevents losses, reduces the severity of losses, and speeds recovery. The persons, items or property, and organization protected through effective mitigation benefit because they remain unharmed and productive or are quickly returned to productivity. Consequently, they reduce the expenditure of resources necessary to restore damage and to operate the administrative and legal processes for determining financial responsibility for the damage. In most situations, reducing the frequency, severity, or unpredictability of losses is more cost-effective than paying to restore the property, liability, personnel, or net income losses. Expenditures on risk control typically pay for themselves by reducing risk financing costs.

Beyond these benefits for individual organizations, communities, and cities, non-structural mitigation also has advantages for the entire economy. Appropriate mitigation measures preserve existing economic resources. Consequently, they reduce the expenditure of resources necessary to restore damage and to operate the administrative and legal processes for determining financial responsibility for the damage.


The general techniques that can be applied can be defined as follows:

• Exposure avoidance - abandoning or never undertaking an asset or activity, which reduces tozero the probability of a particular loss arising from that asset or activity

• Loss prevention - reducing (but not completely eliminating) the frequency of a loss from a givenexposure

• Loss reduction - reducing the severity or likely size of a loss from a particular exposure

• Segregation of exposure units - increasing the number of independent exposure units on whichan organization relies, thus reducing the likelihood that all units will be impaired by the sameaccident, through separation (dividing one exposure unit into two or more independent units, allfor use in the organization's normal operations) or duplication (maintaining duplicate or standbyassets or activities, with the duplicates being used only when the ones the organization normallyuses suffer loss)

A national strategy can encourage/address non-structural mitigation through the following measures:

1) Advising government and business on how to emphasize mitigation as an integral element of thecommunity's mitigation strategy, to encourage and reward compliance with standards, and tocorrect any shortcomings in risk control.

2) Co-ordinating the efforts of government, the public, and industry by providing services to theorganization in recognizing hazards and taking appropriate control measures.

3) Facilitating resolution of any conflicts between government and industry regarding how best toimplement effective risk control measures, invoking the approved mitigation policy whenappropriate.

4) Exercising whatever direct authority the emergency organization may have over risk control,especially during emergencies.

5) Measuring and controlling the costs and benefits of alternative risk control techniques in order todevelop the most cost-effective risk control program.

Major Areas Addressed by a National Mitigation StrategyAn effective National Mitigation Strategy should address four areas: (1) loss prevention measures, (2) loss reduction measures, (3) co-ordination of crisis management, and (4) post-emergency recovery actions.

For organizations and people, disasters/crises are unsettling, stressful events. Responding constructively to such events requires structure, order, and discipline. To achieve the requirements of structure, order, and discipline, an organization must develop a Mitigation Strategy and educate appropriate personnel in its content. Such a strategy provides direction for coping with the crisis, indicates assignments of authority, specifies the duties of crisis management teams, describes how to operate crisis management command posts, and specifies alternative means of communication inside and outside the organization.

The Strategy is intended to engender a fundamental change in the general public's perception about hazard risk and mitigation of that risk and to demonstrate that mitigation is often the most cost-

86 Appendix E

effective, and environmentally sound, approach to reducing losses. The overall long-term goal of the Strategy is to substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk and to significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and the disruption of families and communities caused by natural hazards.

Mitigation Program Elements

1. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIONWritten Policy Program Administrator Industry Participation Performance Standards Reference Manual Government/Industry/Community Audit of Program Assigned Responsibility Established Objectives Policy to Handle Refusals Reference Library

2. TRAININGOrientationFormal TrainingProgram Administrator Training

3. INSPECTIONSPlanned General InspectionsFollow-up to Procedures to InspectionsInspection AnalysisInspectionHazard ReportingCentral Inspection FileProgram Monitoring

4. TASK ANALYSISManagement Directive Critical Task Inventory Task Analysis Hazard Identification Program Monitoring

5. ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONSEstablished Procedure Scope of investigationsFire, Flood, accidents, property etc.

Remedial Action Major Occurrence Follow-up Near Miss Follow-up Management Participation Investigations

Central Report/investigations File Program Monitoring

6. TASK OBSERVATION (coaching)Task Observation Program Management Program Training T.O. Report Program Monitoring

7. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSProgram Administrator Emergency Plan Training in First Aid Emergency Lighting & Power Coding of Energy Controls Protective & Rescue Equipment Emergency Team Outside Help & Mutual Aid Records Protection Post Event Planning Emergency Communication System Public Relations

8. ORGANIZATIONAL RULESGeneral Legislative Obligations Specialized Regulations Work Permit Systems

Hot WorkCold WorkHigh PressureDivingConfined Space EntryRestricted Space EntryHazardous ChemicalsLock OutExcavationHigh WorkRadiationHeavy HoistingElectrical

Regulatory Education & Review Regulatory Compliance Policy Educational Signs & Colour Codes Program Monitoring

9. ACCIDENT ANALYSISStatistical Computations Injury & Illness Analysis Property & Equipment Damage Analysis

Problem Solving Teams Near Miss Analysis

10. TRAINING OF PUBLIC,EMPLOYEES, ETC.

Training Needs Analysis Written Training Programs Licensing System Refresher Program Training Program Evaluation

11. PERSONAL PROTECTIVEEQUIPMENT (PPE) PPE Need Identified PPE Standards PPE Record Keeping Enforcement of Standards Program Monitoring

12. HEALTH CONTROLHazard IdentificationControl procedures

Engineering controlsWorkplace, Community PracticesAdministrative ControlsPPE

Disposal Procedures WHMISTraining & Education Occupational Hygiene Monitoring Health Maintenance Programs Professional Assistance

Occupational Health PhysicianCertified Occupational Health RNPhysiotherapist Record

Keeping StandardsConfidentialityKept for Legal Time Requirements

13. PROGRAM EVALUATION SYSTEM

Evaluation of Compliance withProgramPhysical Conditions MonitoringFire Prevention & Control MonitoringOccupational Health Evaluation

VentilationHazardous SubstancesNoise ExposureTemperature ExtremesBiohazardsIlluminationErgonomicsPPEEnvironmental

Protection Program Record Keeping

14. ENGINEERING CONTROLSEngineering Design

Considerations new and retrofit design review process changes contractor changes

Program Monitoring

15. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Training in Personal Communications Job Orientation Task Instructions Planned Personal Contacts Program Monitoring

16. GROUP MEETINGSSafety Talks

frequency ■written performance standardstimely topics

Record Keeping of Talks Management Involvement Program Monitoring

17. GENERAL PROMOTIONBulletin Boards Poster Program Statistics Communications Critical Topic Promotion Awards/Recognition Program information Publications Housekeeping Promotion Record Keeping

88 Appendix E

QPI#7 RESPONDENT:

Michael Salib

Non-structural mitigation activities encompass measures that include:

• land use planning and control through zoning,

• assessments of risk in communities,

• application of risk management measures to control hazards,

• relocation of populations out of high hazard areas or alternatively relocation of the hazardsource, e.g., plant site, transportation corridor, etc.

• designating hazardous activities / industries in areas that minimize the potential impact of thehazard on populations and the environment,

• developing criteria for and selection of appropriate transportation routes in a community, etc.

These measures are effective in reducing the risk from hazards and in building safer communities.

A national strategy must address and encourage these highly effective non-structural mitigation activities. This may be achieved through:

• Clearly delineating the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government,industry and other involved parties and the expectations of individual Canadians

• Developing the necessary tools that aid non-structural mitigation efforts

• Raising the levels of awareness of all stakeholders

• Providing incentives for voluntary adoption and implementation, perhaps within a legislativeframework

•

DEVELOPING PUBLIC PARTICIPACTION

Enhance consumer awareness of the benefits of mitigation as a means of reducing loss due to catastrophes and encourage active participation in developing individual and community

programs for mitigation.

How do we ensure compliance with a National Mitigation Strategy?

What is the value of public awareness to the development and implementation of a mitigation strategy? And, what is the role of future participation of the public in the development phase of the strategy?

Developing Public Participaction: QPI #8 91

QPI #8

How do we ensure compliance with a National Mitigation Strategy?

RESPONDENT: Ian Burton

To my mind the word "compliance" implies a legal regime. Examples relevant to mitigation activities might include a federal statute (criminal law) that applies to behaviour and security in an emergency situation; a provincial zoning ordinance on flood plain development, and a local municipal bylaw or regulation such as a building code for earthquake resistance, etc. Responsibility for compliance (enforcement) rests with the appropriate body. Therefore it does not really make sense to talk of compliance in a monolithic sort of way.

So perhaps the question could be reformulated in two ways. First how is compliance ensured in each case? The answer to this question will probable need to be different according to the nature of what it is that is to be complied with. I would be inclined to start with a bottom up approach that asks "where do we have the greatest problems with non-compliance at the present time?" If we do not know the answer tom that question then we should find out. Assuming we know where the problems are, then we could begin to address those specific cases. For example if earthquake building codes are being ignored or circumvented then lets address that. One approach that I would like to see explored more is the idea of reductions in insurance premiums. There seems to be a current philosophy and practice in the insurance industry, (both public and private).that the level of premiums is set according to experience in claims. I think a serious exploration is need of how to use insurance as a social instrument for the reduction of vulnerability, not the reduction of claims. Thus premiums would be set a different levels according to the degree of risk, and according to the adoption of adjustment or adaptation measures designed to lower the damage potential. I am not sure how "fine grained" this could be, that is a matter for other who know better perhaps. But for example would it be possible to reduce premiums for the following sorts of adjustments, -high level of structural integrity in relation to earthquake? - keeping an operational fire extinguisher in the house? - flood proofing the basement/ground floor? -

There is a second way in which compliance enters. How can an umbrella national mitigation strategy be constructed such that the component area of responsibility are mutually reinforcing, and promote compliance? Lets us suppose that the federal government agrees to support provincial. Strategy, and that provinces do likewise with municipalities. How can this support mechanism be set up so that the lower order of government enforces compliance? If the province does not have a proper flood damage reduction plan in place and enforced then it does not qualify for federal assistance .etc. Always recognizing that carrots work better than sticks, and that action before (preventive / anticipatory) is better than reactive.

92 Appendix E

QPI#8 RESPONDENT: Edda

Brown

Speaking as a member of a policy and regulatory federal department, compliance is a term integral to what we do in Transport Canada. Some background information may be useful. Transport Canada's mission is 'To develop and administer policies, regulations and services for the best possible transportation system'. Historically, the department has financed, operated and regulated major elements of Canada's transportation infrastructure. Today the role of the department is to develop up-to-date relevant transportation policies and legislation and to ensure a high level of safety and security.

The department accomplishes this through a regulatory framework and standards and through certification, monitoring, inspection and compliance programs. Arrival at an appropriate and fair regulatory framework and standards is achieved through consultations and joint undertakings with clients or stakeholders (i.e. the transportation industry). All modes of transportation are regulated to some extent by Transport Canada. A summary of areas of responsibilities follows.

Aviation Group - Under the Aeronautics Act and the National Transportation Act, this group is responsible for development of regulations to control aeronautics, with emphasis on airworthiness and compliance activities and for the provision of a safety promotion program to improve the skills and knowledge of pilots and other involved in aviation.

Marine Group - This group is responsible for the administration and enforcement of regulations pertaining to ship safety and vessel-source pollution and administration of clean-up operations from shipping following pollution incidents, including resources.

Surface Group - This group contributes to public safety in the national transportation system through the delivery of programs for road safety and motor vehicle regulation, the transportation of dangerous goods and railway safety. This is achieved through the administration of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Railway Safety Act and supporting regulations.

As you can see, Transport Canada requires and manages compliance within a legislative framework. This works well from a federal perspective. Transport deals with the industry through a consultative process in developing all of its regulations. Stakeholders are more apt to agree and comply with rules if they were part of the decision making process to establish rules in the first place.

While formal legislation or regulations related to mitigation might not be the best approach at the local or municipal level, a consultative and partnership approach in the development of mitigation strategies may be one avenue to follow to ensure compliance.


QPI#8 RESPONDENT: Peter

Walton

"You won't have me to kick around anymore."Former US President Richard Nixon announcing his first resignation from politics to the news media.

"I'm kind of sorry I won't have you to kick around anymore."Former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau announcing his first resignation from politics to the news media.

Ensuring compliance with a national mitigation policy is not a matter of choice, but a strategic imperative. The news media can play a compelling role by ensuring the public "buys into" the importance of compliance. The more people aware of the benefits of the national strategy the stronger the support for such a strategy. Awareness is a necessary first step toward support.

TV News is the most powerful medium given that more than 80% of Canadians identify TV News as that their primary source of information about the world around them.

Here in BC, BCTV's 5:00 p.m., 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. newscasts have an combined audience exceeding 1.2 million viewers. BCTV's Newshour (6 p.m.) alone attracts more than 640,000 viewers, making the program the most-watched English-language TV News show in Canada and the third-largest TV News audience in North America.

At the same time news has decreased as a percentage of the overall Canadian radio programming, daily newspaper readership continues to decline across Canada and less than 10% of Canadians rate magazines as important information sources.

Technological advances and the growing importance of global communications has created an information "religion" at the end of the 20m century and the dawn of the 21st century.

Communications has become the "cathedral" of this information religion and TV News has assumed the position of "high priests" within the cathedral.

The TV News communications clergy do an excellent job of communicating information quickly, effectively and widely to the public. But it is the control and influence the clergy have that is truly impressive.

Sustained, blanket TV News coverage can make or break public policy and public opinion. Just ask any elected - or defeated - politician.

94 Appendix E

The medium's agenda/opinion influence is evident when you examine crime reporting and it's impact on public perceptions. Although the murder rate in Canada during the past 20 years has actually deceased by 16%, TV News coverage of murder has increased by 65%. While TV News concentrates on murders committed by strangers, the reality is that more than 80% of Canadian murderers know their victims.

The TV News clergy also does a poor job of communicating substance, context and analysis. The medium's over-reliance on pictures generates a distorted , sensationalized image that under-reports less visual, complex stories such as government policy.

The TV News business is all about pictures and entertainment. Murder, fires, hostage takings, drownings, plane crashes, road rage, vehicle pile-ups, police chases, terrorist attacks and disasters are visually compelling "entertainment" that attract large audiences.

While some TV News broadcasters attempt to explain the why behind the news headlines, the vast majority of successful news broadcasters concentrate on the visual/human impact of the who, what, when, where and how of the story.

Michael Deaver, the man behind former US President Ronald Regan's "great communicator" talent, once noted "give the TV news networks great entertainment and they'll sell it to the public as news."

National mitigation policy makers, NGOs, associations and experts must recognize the powerful role TV News plays within the information religion of the emerging millennium.

They must learn the strengths, limitations and needs of the TV medium and practitioners. They must acquire the media skills to work with TV News reporters, editors and producers in order to inform, involve and educate audiences of the importance, relevance and benefits of a national mitigation strategy.

'


QPI#9

What is the value of public awareness to the development and implementation of a mitigationstrategy? And, what is the role of future participation of the

public in the development phase of the strategy?

RESPONDENT: Charlwood and White

Risk & Society Project:

The Risk & Society project is a multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder, international research, education, awareness, communications and policy project created and managed by Black and White Communications Inc. under the auspices of CNC-IDNDR. It is supported by all levels of government and aims to strengthen links between research, policy and practice.

The Risk & Society project has through its innovative programs of surveys and Roundtables, expanded the disaster network and has introduced a basis for policy development in the form of the Risk & Society Canon for Natural Disaster Mitigation^.

The Canon^ declares the following three basic principles to be essential to policy development:

1. Natural disaster policy must ensure that local communities are involved in the process at everylevel, from identifying hazards and vulnerabilities, to implementation. It is understood that thoseparticularly vulnerable to natural disaster must have a voice in this process. This includeswomen and children, minority groups, the disabled and the poor.

2. All work in support of reduction of natural disasters and their effects must involve all sectors ofthe research, development, planning and implementing communities. Multidisciplinaryapproaches give us wider vision of problems and their solutions. It is through bringing diverseknowledge, skills and expertise together that we will realize our objective of reducing negativeimpacts of disaster.

3. We recognize that negative impacts from natural disaster are often measured by humans asprimordinarily concerning loss of life or injury to humans and our possessions or property. Wewill address policy too, to the impact on the organization of society, the economy and theenvironment.

. *

Each of these elements is essential, together, to a balanced effort to reduce natural disasters consistent with sustainable development of our planet. These principles for mitigation policy are

The Risk & Society Project, Black and White Communications Inc. " A body of principles, rules, standards or norms, Webster's Dictionary

96 Appendix E

achievable, locally or globally, through supporting our universal desire to live in peace, with a quality of life which includes our involvement and influence over our decisions and understanding of risk.

QPI#9 RESPONDENT: Peter

Walton

Imagine you're the CEO of a large retail corporation and you're about to introduce a new consumer product to the Canadian market. The product is only one of the more than 100,000 new products introduced every year in this country.

Next imagine how successful your product, and you career for that matter, will be if you introduce this new product without any supporting advertising and market research.

Now picture the same scenario with a national mitigation strategy as your product, the Canadian public as your customers, a public awareness campaign as the advertising and public participation as market research.

Public awareness and participation are a mandatory first step toward building support. This is true for either corporations or policy makers. Both must inform and involve the "buying" public in order to "sell" their products.

Public awareness and participation, if handled properly, can snowball toward public support. Ignore the public awareness and participation process and your policy won't stand a snowball's chance in the heat of unanticipated public opposition.

Informing and involving the public shows policy makers' respect and recognition of the "buying" public's input and insight in "selling" process.

The public is not as concerned about how much the policy makers know until they know how much the policy makers care to inform and involve them in the process. Forget this and your policy, like an untested and unadvertised consumer product, will gather dust on the shelf.

Developing Public Participaction: QPI #9

97

QPI#9 RESPONDENT:

Michael Salib

It is very important at the outset to identify the roles and responsibilities of government (at all levels) in hazard mitigation. Most Canadians believe that the different levels of government will shield them from disasters (by having taken all the necessary actions to prevent a disaster (other than natural ones) or will appropriately intervene to mitigate the effects of such disasters.

In the current climate of fiscal restraint governments are cutting programs, reducing expenditures, etc. This has resulted in the reduction of dollars and resources for disaster mitigation programs across the country and consequently the governments' ability to adequately perform them. The public currently has a false sense of security in believing that governments can still act or intervene when necessary.

It is therefore, paramount not only to increase the levels of public awareness and engage the public in the debate and in the development of the strategy, but also to include other key sectors, such as, industry, labour, non-governmental organizations, academia, etc. Unless the public is actively engaged, a sufficient demand for industry and governments to take appropriate measures will not be made.

ENHANCING GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ACTION

Promote action within private industry and government towards effective disaster riskmanagement practices through targeted research and dissemination of information of

information and provide encouragement to turn such lessons into action.

Q QPI

10 Discuss the merits of an all-hazards insurance program. Consider whether such a program would ensure insurers provide coverage for all risk areas.

11 How can a mitigation strategy balance the commercial/economic needs of business, with the social and community requirements for sustainability, life safety, and recovery?

12 How can we convince governments, in a time of fiscal restraint, that mitigation is a cost-effective activity? j

13 How can we convince the insurance and financial institutions to provide funding for mitigation and to form partnerships with government and private sector organizations to establish a viable mitigation strategy?

14 Should a percentage of DFAA be allocated for restoration work (which may include upgrading for mitigative purposes)? If so, how much?

15 Why have some mitigation strategies been successfully implemented (what are the motivators for designing and implementing mitigation strategies)?

Enhancing Government and Industry Action: QPI #10 101

QPI #10

Discuss the

merits of an all-hazards insurance program . Consider whether

such a

program

would

ensure insurers provide coverage

;e for all risk areas.

RESPONDENT: Grant Kelly

Response:This question presumes that insurance availability is an issue in Canada. Private insurers already provide insurance coverage for the vast majority of natural and man-made hazards. Life and Health insurance is also readily available.

BackgroundThe Canadian property and casualty insurance industry currently provides a standard property insurance policy that provides coverage against perils such as fire, theft, strong winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail and freezing rain. Coverage for additional perils such as torrential rain, sewer back-up, landslides and damage caused by the weight of snow are also generally available as endorsements, or additions, to the standard property policy. Private industry does provide coverage for the majority of perils faced by Canadians.

Insurance policies or endorsements because of circumstances that make them unacceptable for underwriting reasons, however, do not generally cover some climatic-related hazards. Damage caused by flooding of lakes, rivers and streams, as well as waves, tides and tidal waves are examples of localised risks which violate basic underwriting criteria, and thus, cannot be covered by standard insurance policies.

Geological hazards, in particular earthquakes, pose the greatest natural threat to Canadians, the Canadian economy and the property and casualty insurance industry. Unlike flooding, earthquake satisfies the key criteria for underwriting acceptability. Most property losses from earthquake are of two sorts: damage from shaking and fire damage. Insurance is currently available for both types of damage. The private insurance industry has actively worked with governments to ensure that private insurance can remain a viable solution for those impacted by earthquakes in Canada. We believe that the tools are now in place for private insurers to provide earthquake insurance. Unlike some locations in the US, there has been a problem with insurance availability in Canada. The availability of insurance is a real issue facing the insurance industry and regulators in California and Florida where there have been multi-billion dollar catastrophes in recent years. In Canada,coverage for natural hazards in available.

. /The case for flooding is different and private insurers do not cover this hazard. Here, the population at risk tends to be small, and localised - only those living on the banks of the lake or river will have an economic interest in purchasing flood insurance; furthermore, with each event a large percentage, or indeed the entire exposed population is likely to sustain a loss. As a result, commercially realistic premiums are not possible for the exposed population. Insurance is not an appropriate tool for addressing this hazard. There is not a country know to the Insurance Bureau of Canada where private

102 Appendix E

insurers voluntarily underwrite flood insurance. Improved land-use planning or the developments of local savings vehicles are two possible alternatives.

Commercial InsuranceSimilar to personal property cover, the private P&C industry currently provides an insurance policy that provides coverage against perils such as fire, theft, strong winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail and freezing rain. Coverage for additional perils such as torrential rain, sewer back-up, landslides and damage caused by the weight of snow are also generally available as endorsements, or additions, to the standard property policy.

An important difference between commercial and personal lines insurance is that in some circumstances it is possible to obtain flood insurance. Another important difference between commercial and property coverage is that risk management is a larger component of the underwriting process.

Given the definition of hazards used in this symposium it is unlikely that an all hazards insurance program would be successful. Insurance is a product whereby one undertakes to indemnify another party against a loss, damage or liability arising from a contingent or unknown event. Insurance is an economic institution that reduces the risk to any individual entity by a pooling arrangement that makes the actual loss predictable within narrow limited. An "all hazards" policy would require a single contract to cover all natural hazards, all diseases and epidemics and all person-induced (technological) hazards.

The difficulty with an all hazards insurance program in this context is:

1. With such a broad definition of perils, it work be virtually impossible to determine the correctpremium that an individual should pay based on their individual risk.

2. P&C insurance for natural hazards is intended to replace the property being covered. Personalhealth insurance is intended to pay for medical coverage. Life and health insurance provide thiscoverage. The Insurance Act requires that P&C and Life insurers are separate legal entities.

3. Some of the hazards described are not considered to be insurable.

The Premium Setting ProcessThe process by which insurers determine whether coverage can be supplied at a price that yields a reasonable profit requires that the insurer to accurately identify and quantify the risk. This involves specifying the perils against which coverage will be offered. A standard property insurance policy that provides coverage against perils such as fire, theft, strong winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail and freezing rain. After identifying the perils, the insurer would like to be able to estimate the probability of events of different magnitudes and the resulting losses. For frequent events, one can rely on past data in order to identify and quantify the risk. Less frequent events require scientific studies or models to quantify the risk.

If premiums are based on individual risk, then insurance can send a clear signal to consumers about the risks they face.


Conclusion:The Canadian P&C insurance industry provides coverage against most natural and man-made hazards faced by property and business owners. Unlike some other countries, there is not a problem obtaining insurance in Canada.

QPI #10 RESPONDENT:

Chris Tucker

Answer. So, who is going to "bell the cat"? Given current directions in payouts and compensation (spiralling upwards), private and semi-public insurers in Canada are moving in the opposite direction. Given that all parties (insurers and property owners) wish to minimize their risk, there is an obvious conflict here. How does an all-hazard insurance policy provide affordable, universal coverage? Who will underwrite the cost in a large, empty country? Will policyholders be able to afford the premiums and deductibles, with or without a mandated requirement for coverage on personal property? Should aggressive mitigation and retrofitting policies be tied to acceptance for individual/community insurance coverage? Is the insurance payout to be a repayable loan or an outright compensation?

All-hazards insurance appears an attractive option when viewed from a distance. How workable it would be in terms of affordability, etc., would need to be the subject of detailed analysis.

104 Appendix E

QPI#11

How can a Mitigation Strategy balance the commercial/economic needs of business with the social and community requirements for sustainability life, safety, and recovery?


The question at stake here is one of consensus in a community. How can such a consensus be built? The first element to consider is the size of the community. In the case of densely populated areas, it is very difficult to get a consensus, and even more if different cultural communities are involved.

Mitigation is related to what is called acceptable risk . Maybe we can discuss a few aspects of this term here. First, acceptability is a process. This means that it can change, depending on the moment or on the groups involved (or both). Acceptability is a social process, because it involves the various stakeholders in a risk situation. These stakeholders can be a private firm, a customer, an insurance company, the residents around a hazard, professional associations, lobbying groups, etc. They have something to gain or to lose in the process of defining what is acceptable.

Which elements come into play in such a definition? First, the individual perceives a risk (its probability and its consequences), then places trust in the organizations responsible for managing the hazard . There are also social factors , like the perceived legitimacy of the activities related to a hazard. This legitimacy is, in turn, related to equity, i.e. to the relative equilibrium between who will benefit from the technology or the activities related to a hazard, and who will have to pay for it. These ethical considerations are important today, and very often explain, at least to some extent, the differences between public perceptions and those of some part of a community like business firms, in relation to mitigation. Because we are in the field of values here, and also of interests, and of power, the question is not only who will benefit, but who will decide? Who participates in the decision? How is the problem defined, and by whom? Who has the technical resources? And, finally, is there really a choice?

The mechanisms for achieving a consensus are difficult to determine precisely because of those various interests. This means that we can think of some form of regulation (discussed below). 20. What role would the following types of organizations and/or associations contribute to the development and implementation of a national Mitigation Strategy


QPI#11 RESPONDENT: Mary

Fran Myers

This question implies that business needs for economic growth are at odds with a community's need to be safe. I don't believe that is true. However, if one assumes it is true, in order to rectify the imbalance, a nation's mitigation strategy must ensure that those who benefit from economic growth are the same who pay should damages occur from disasters as a result of that growth. This requires that benefactors of land use decisions made which result in increased vulnerability to others be held responsible for future damages. For example, if a development is allowed upstream in a river basin that results in increased flows downstream (both in terms of volume and velocity), then those developers must be required to somehow pay for or mitigate the potential downstream damage (e.g., through stormwater management or actually paying for future damages).


Jorgensen

For business: if the objectives of the industry aligns with the objectives for the sustainability of life safety and recovery, the balance isn't so much a do/not do but an alignment of needs and priorities. The utilities are there to provide heat, light and communications to the community. They strive to provide this despite hazardous events occurring. There is an alignment. For other business, their business strategy would determine whether or not there is an alignment. The questions then arise, for which other businesses do alignments exist and should there be alignments?

For utilities: the challenge will be to maintain the level and quality of service with existing mitigation strategies as competition now comes into the utility arena. In the US, we have seen what competition has done to the telecommunications and other utility industries. The drive to quickly reduce prices and therefore costs has impacted quality of service in many US areas. This impact has not been limited only to numbers of resources and maintenance of infrastructure. Where once the large US monopolies were able to draw on huge resources - this no longer exists due to the break up of those large corporations. Canada has provided personnel to assist in restoration of infrastructure services for both hydro and telecommunications after major disastrous events in the US.

The question now arises, with competition and driving prices down, what will happen in Canada? Will the same level and quality of service be provided by the competitors, will the traditional utilities be able to continue to provide the quality and level of service and keep up the mitigation and response programs? Will the objective of the industry still align with the objectives of the sustainability of life safety and recovery?

In theory, one would think that the consumer would select the service provider that could provide the best quality of service for such vital services as the utilities provide. In reality, when competition comes in many consumers will choose the less expensive not knowing what service they can expect

106 Appendix E

should a major event occur UNLESS they have experienced lack of infrastructure due to major disastrous event. Provisioning service after the event doesn't meet the needs of all customers in such events whether the customer perceives this or not.

To date, the utilities in BC and the STENTOR telecommunications companies in Canada have had excellent safety, mitigation and response programs relevant to their perceived high risk hazards. These programs include seismic upgrades for buildings, bracing, redundant routing, back up equipment and power, safety programs and training for personnel and equipment retrofits, environmental spill kits and programs. This has not been seen by the general public as we have not had a major 'planned-for' disaster to 'test' the programs in BC. ('planned-for': as not all hazards are necessarily known all are not planned for.) There have been very few recent major events within Canada.

To implement a mitigation strategy for the new competitors in the utility arena is perhaps the area to look at. This may further be expanded in that is it the mitigation strategy that gets defined and implemented or is it the terms of service, availability and reliability that are to be terms defined with the strategy determined by the new corporate entrants to the utility industry and by business in general?

QPI #11 RESPONDENT: Alan

Ruffman

BALANCING BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS VS COMMUNITY NEEDS

The balance comes down to political decisions, and I think we must concede that the majority of politicians, while well-meaning and concerned, just are not the best informed or the cleverest members of society on average. Political decisions are all too often made on the basis of good old political pressure — numbers of letters, phone calls, radio commentaries, and backroom conversations all play a role. But so do the staff reports and advice given from experts.

Clearly the short-term goals of a business or of its shareholders to maximize profits can marshall huge financial pressure on politicians at election time or when it comes time to pay off the debt from the leadership campaign. Thus a vote in favour of delaying the imposition of a new floodplain exclusion zoning may not be "bought" but it certainly can be influenced — and this happens all the time in Canadian communities. Thus in Truro, Nova Scotia the Salmon River floodplain has had a series of incremental incursions. No one Council is guilty — they all are — as is the Provincial government that has so consistently failed to lead on regional planning matters.

As long as we surrender to such pressures it is fair to say that unsafe buildings will be built in the La Malbaie area of Quebec or in Victoria, B.C. If the present process continues, ski lodges at Canmore, Alberta or Whistler, B.C. will incrementally migrate into avalanche zones, or residences into a potential tsunami runup zone in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, or houses behind the beach at Lawrencetown,


Nova Scotia where Hurricane Hortense briefly flooded in September 1996 as it barely sideswiped the Nova Scotia mainland.

To counter this process, professionals must do two things to start:

1. Give the best estimate of the hazard and the time frame.2. Give a realistic and achievable set of mitigation strategies.

Thus there is work to be done on both fronts. Clearly we do not yet have all the exacting work of floodplain mapping done, all the historic seismicity documentation, or the climatology of serious storms in place. These efforts must continue with ongoing, rather than sporadic, funding. However, to at least the first degree the natural hazards are known and, to the degree we can, professionals must translate these natural hazards into probabilities to give politicians and populations estimates to focus on, and around which to build mitigation strategies and policies.

These probabilities then must be translated into the best estimates of lives lost and property damage in present conditions, and perhaps adding the all-important additional factor of persons who will have their lives disrupted, either briefly or in toto. Too often we hear disaster statistics as a tally of lives lost, so many injured, and $x of property damage. The other statistics of families disrupted, time put out of one's home or school, time removed from friends or time spent out of work, extra time spent trying to repair one's home, time off work, time not spent on normal community volunteer services — these statistics are very hard to gather after a disaster and they are very hard to predict. Yet they are a very real part of the cost of a potential disaster and politicians must understand these as they face public policy decisions re mitigation.

In laying out these potential losses then, the balance between business or commercial concerns vs community concerns begins to be struck. And as the public begins to understand these potential effects of a disaster, the public begins to influence the political decisions made. Thus in Truro, Nova Scotia the blockage of the Salmon River floodplain will be understood, not just as businesses' rights to expand the malls' parking lots by infilling the floodplain, but as citizens' rights to avoid having their basements flooded yet again with the loss of the family photo album and a carpet that generates mould and health problems over the next 5 years.

Which brings us to the next question of assisting governments to action.

108 Appendix E

QPI# 11 RESPONDENT:

Chris Tucker

As stated, balancing a mitigative strategy between the commercial/economic needs of business and the social and community requirements for sustainability, life safety, and recovery is a non-sequitur. Firstly, it implies that community has no commercial/economic needs and secondly, that business is not interested in sustainability, life safety and recovery. The reality is that business and community are interested in the whole and are interdependent. The balance is struck when both elements have attained a new measure of stability in the recovery process. Business needs to be functioning in an orderly fashion with some semblance of normality so that corporate mitigative policies can be planned and implemented. Similarly, communities need to be housed, fed, and in a solid recovery mode so that individual and societal programmes may be pursued. As with other areas of mutual concern, local planning must respect this interdependency between business and community in developing well-directed mitigation strategies.

QPI # 11 RESPONDENT: Scott

Crowley

A crisis is a turning point in an organization's activities. An impending accidental loss, especially one brought on by an act of nature (a natural peril), requires that appropriate actions be taken immediately to assure the survival and continuing operating efficiency of the organization. A Mitigation Strategy should provide a co-ordinated, effective response through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling an organization's assets and activities immediately before, during, and after the impending accidental event. The goal is to preserve the organization's resources for the fullest feasible long-term recovery. Safeguarding these resources requires that certain actions be taken promptly and effectively, considering the people, resources, and time available. Regardless if the organization is a business, government, or the community, the principles of the is concept remain unchanged.

All mitigation/business continuity plans apply the general risk control techniques of loss prevention, loss reduction, and duplication of exposure units in ways comparable to those discussed elsewhere in this text. These techniques suggest numerous specific actions that an organization should take just before or just after a peril strikes to reduce loss. Some risk control techniques, however, have fewer applications is crisis management than in other situations. For example, most natural perils cannot be totally avoided or effectively prevented. Therefore, loss reduction to make natural catastrophes more predictable or less damaging is a more effective strategy in most cases. What makes mitigation planning challenging is the shortage of time and other resources available to implement appropriate risk controls.

In order for a Mitigation Strategy to balance the commercial/economic needs of Business, with the social and community requirements for sustainability, life safety, and recovery, one must first


understand what those needs are. Once we begin to examine those needs more closely it becomes evident that the business community relies on similar requirements for sustainability, life safety, and recovery. Consequently, by ensuring the business community develop detailed business continuity/crisis management plans, the Mitigation Strategy can ensure the needs of the community are also met.

The Mitigation Strategy should contain elements which are common to both the needs of business, and the needs of the community. These elements include protecting each of the five essential types of resources every organization needs to survive a crisis with enough strength to fully resume normal operations. These five essentials are organizational structure, personnel, production facilities, operating funds, and the organization's raw materials and the products or services it produces.

Goals of Business in a Crisis

The first goal of management is for the organization to survive any foreseeable accidental loss. The time-critical actions in a business continuity plan are vital for long-term final recovery. Effective management also ensures survival in the short run until longer term recovery plans can be implemented.

_________________________ Beyond organizational survival, effective management of a risk alsoPre-Loss Goals ___________ shares other pre-loss and post-loss goals. For the pre-loss goal of• Economy of___________economy of operations, mitigation planning should generate benefits

operations ___________ that exceed the costs of formulating and carrying out the plan. For• Legality of operations the pre-loss goal of legality of the organization's operations, a• Humanitarian conduct business's management should incorporate steps to ensure that the

organization will comply with applicable statutes (such as for thecontainment of toxic materials) or policy established as a result of the National Mitigation Strategy. For the pre-loss goal of humanitarian conduct, crisis management should emphasize life safety.

Post-loss goals include maintaining continuous operations, sustaining profitability, achieving stable earnings, working toward growth, and maintaining a good public image. Crisis management reaches toward these goals by preserving assets and operations essential to continuous operations or to profitability, and by enabling the organization to minimize any unavoidable interruptions in its operations.

Managing a National Mitigation program, like managing _______________________________any other activity, requires individuals to plan, organize, Post-Loss Goalslead, and control a complete risk management program. The • Maintaining Operations plan/strategy must rest on the basic objectives of the • Sustaining Profitabilityindustries/ communities and should foster these goals. • Achieving stable earningsOrganizing entails not only structuring a risk management • Working toward growth department internally, but also developing lines of ~l Maintaining good public image communication and authority or responsibility throughoutthe organization, the community, and beyond. In this way, co-operation, rather than conflict, marks the risk management program.

110 Appendix E

To join with others in leading the program effectively, the Mitigation Strategy must make clear to industry senior management, government representatives and the public that their operations will only succeed if they safeguard their operations from the disruptions that accidental losses are almost sure to cause. Controlling the program requires establishing and gaining industries and their senior management support of performance standards - stated either as objectives to be achieved or activities to be performed.

The basic document for a sound mitigation strategy is a written statement of risk management policy endorsed by government, industry and the community, and understood and implemented by managers and others throughout the organization. To achieve the several advantages that such a policy can bring to an industry, the community, and government, the policy should be consistent with the industry's objectives, flexible, and effectively communicated to all those who are governed by it.

Finally effective communication and understanding, by industry, of the following items will assist government in the implementation of its objectives:

1. Accidents have great impact on the bottom line of the organization, considering the resourcesneeded to produce adequate sales volume to recover the costs of the accident.

2. The vast majority of accidents are preventable. Hazards can often be engineered out of theprocess provided that a hazard analysis has been performed by a competent person and thatthrough adequate and appropriate hazard communication, workers can be warned of existingdangers.

3. An adequate, regularly maintained safety program is needed to reduce accident frequency andseverity. By instituting a safety program with an adequate number of components such asaccident investigation, hazard reporting, communications, senior management involvement,training, Standard Operating Procedures, etc. many internal and external hazards are controlled.

4. Management control of the safety program will directly impact the frequency and severity ofaccidents.

Organizations that have exercised good stewardship with safety will often have parallel systems for quality, production and environmental management issues, and are most likely to be more profitable than a similar organization without these systems. Resources can often be shared between systems thereby reducing costs (e.g. environmental and safety).


QPI#12

How can we convince governments, in a time of fiscal restraint that mitigationis a cost-effective activity?


I seem to be getting into a style of picking bones with the question instead of answering it at face value. Cost-effective refers to a method of analysis. You simply take as many ways as you can think of for skinning a cat and find out the cost of each. So in this case we should ask "what mitigation activity"? There are several ways to reduce (mitigate) the losses from floods for example. To list a few; build flood control dams; watershed treatment to slow down run-off; flood plain zoning; building codes to make buildings flood proof; improved forecasting and warning systems; insurance linked to zoning; evacuation planning; relocation of property to a new higher site; dykes and levees; emergency sandbagging; moving vulnerable property upstairs; praying; the list could be quite long. For each of these measures we then ask how much reduction of flood damage (potential) can we get for a certain level of expenditure/investment? This then gives us presumably a cost-effective solution. Except that no one measure will suffice or give the most cost-effective solution by itself. So we are obliged to ask what combination of measures is most cost effective?

Question 12 asks about cost effectiveness for mitigation as a whole. Mitigation versus what? Should the question be "what mitigation measures are most cost-effective?" In which case we do the sort of c-a analysis envisaged above for floods and for all the other hazards! Or is the question about mitigation in relation to some other alternative? What could that be? The potential contents of the mitigation strategy as described on page 5 of the Participation Guidelines seems to include just about everything that one can do. So perhaps the question means mitigation compared with doing nothing. If we do nothing, and make no efforts at mitigation then losses will presumably be higher and higher. Except that we do know from sad experience that some mitigation measures can serve to increase losses in the longer run. So we have to show that the combination of mitigation measures proposed will really be effective in reducing losses, and that the amount of losses (damages) prevented will really exceed the costs of mitigation.

All this rather supposes that the way to convince governments is through some rational economic analysis. Some people in some governments would no doubt pay attention. But there is also the more political approach through public information and public pressure. The usual response to this is a public information blitz. Not an easy path to follow or succeed in. The hazards people have one big advantage and that is that disasters do happen. Then is the time to strike. Be prepared with a program, a proposal, with something ready to go and slip it onto the table when you have got everybody's attention because of a current or very recent disaster. "Yes Minister, but if we had a National Mitigation Strategy this would not have happened!" "What never?" " Well, hardly ever!"

112 Appendix E

QPI #12 RESPONDENT: Mary

Fran Myers

There is no doubt that since hazards occur only on an infrequent basis that government leaders tend to put dealing with them low on priority lists. In order to turn that trend around, there is a need for a grass roots plea for attention to be focused on preventing future damage from disasters. This concept is articulated very well in the US' National Mitigation Strategy. In the long run, this will require a focused and sustained-over-time public education and awareness program. Citizens and policy makers alike must be apprised of the potential for damage to occur, what losses might be expected, and how mitigation could be used to avoid those losses.

Among other things, this can be done through the use of case studies. Such case studies must be realistic, so that people can visualize a potential disaster that is likely to occur in their town or province, and not some far off place. FEMA recently published a report with anecdotal descriptions of the cost-effectiveness of mitigation.

These kinds of educational tools need to be complemented by systematic research that documents both the costs and the benefits of all mitigation techniques. Because some of the benefits of various techniques are non-monetary, it is important that all benefits be documented and accounted for.

Further, local governments should be encouraged to incorporate issues of hazards when developing comprehensive land use plans. It has been noted that, in the long run, it is much safer and cheaper to build communities first the right time. If presented properly, incorporating mitigation into new development can be considered an investment with a long term pay-off of reduced life and property losses and less expensive recovery following a disaster. As savings from predisaster mitigation accrue, they can be redirected toward retrofitting existing development or toward other worthwhile community goals.

Incentives can be used to encourage the adoption of mitigation strategies. For example, in the US, consideration is being given to the idea of providing a more favorable cost-sharing agreement for federally supported projects to communities which have implemented mitigation programs.


QPI #12

RESPONDENT: Alan Ruffman

CONVINCING GOVERNMENTS TO MOVE ON MITIGATION

In a sense perhaps this concern has received a helping nudge from the national publicity given on television and in the press to the August 1996 Saguenay floods, and to the Red River flood in the Spring of 1997. Indeed, the Kobe earthquake and recent events in California and Hurricane Andrew in Florida have done their part, as did the eruption of Mount St. Helens about 15 years ago. Clearly North America is not immune to natural hazards and, while we may be better equipped to respond to them, we are no less guilty than some third world countries in addressing mitigation.

The professional cannot just be content to provide the best estimate of the hazard and to present realistic and achievable mitigation alternatives. We must also be prepared to fight for some action. Disasters do grip the media's and public attention. One does not have to stand up and preach doom to be heard, or to influence the public's understanding of the choices their politicians have.

There is an obligation to show the politician the consequences of no action, or of a failure to act, and to translate that into language that the public can understand. The public does not have to understand that some model with double integrals predicts that the flood stage will reach such-and-such a level — they do need to know that the work of competent professionals suggests that in the next x years there will be an earthquake of y magnitude to a 75% probability — And here are some things we can consider doing about it to minimize societal losses. Further that these mitigative measures will require a certain budget over this time to hopefully spare this many lives, disruption and damage costs.

Thus the responsibility of the professional does not cease after writing the report and turning it in. Our responsibility does not end at 4:30 p.m. (5:00 in Newfoundland?). There is a necessity to learn how to work with the media to both educate them (remembering that there is a constant flow of younger reporters and freelancers) and to educate the public and politicians and their staffs as to the realistic risk from hazards and as to the options available.

In the Winnipeg newspapers after this year's flood there was a map published showing the area of the city that would have been flooded if the floodway had not been built. The Canadian military are distributing an aerial map of the Province showing the "Red Sea". Both of these are clever public relations tactics to build in the public's mind an understanding of the respective agencies' roles. Professionals promoting mitigation can most certainly think of other, but similar, illustrative tools to impress upon decision makers the need for mitigative measures in advance of a disaster.

I for one have not given up on the public's and the politician's capacity to understand these issues. Yes, sometimes one can get very frustrated and hope for a retirement or a different electoral result, but this is the system we work in. You can go home at 4:30 (or 4:00 on flex time) and turn off your computer, or you can continue your role as an informal member of the public in your community and government process.

114 Appendix E

QPI #12 RESPONDENT:

Blaine Rapp

Actual dollar costs of rebuilding after a disaster would be relatively easy to get. Costs would include, but not limited to materials, labour, property, injury etc.

But how would you cost out lost revenues, pain, suffering, loss of life, loss of development potential?

It is hard to sell people on the cost benefits of mitigation/prevention if they do not think it will happen to them.

Emphasize to governments that there will always be a cost after a disaster strikes; loss of tax revenue, loss of infrastructure, loss of potential development. Why not reduce those losses and spend the money on mitigation?

There must be a clear vision of what governments can expect and there must be incentives for them to be pro active.

Some of the incentives could be " positive " ones such as; money allocated to pro active projects that eliminate/reduce the risks, Federal expertise could be made available for projects, materials could be supplied, grants or low interest loans could be made available.

Some of the incentives could be " negative " ones; disaster funding for recovery after a disaster could be reduced for not being pro active, higher insurance premiums for non action, Federal Transfer Payments from could be reduced.

QPI #12 RESPONDENT:

John Salter

Evaluating Risk Treatment Options.In general the adverse impact of risks should be made as low as reasonably practicable. In developing criteria to judge what is 'as low as reasonably practicable' planners should consider factors such as feasibility, costs and benefits and levels of risk. In many cases, it is unlikely that any one risk treatment option will be a complete solution for a particular problem and a number of options may be considered and applied either individually or in combination. Selection of the most appropriate option involves balancing the cost of implementing each option against the benefits derived from it. Where large reductions in risk may be obtained with relatively low expenditure, such options should be implemented. Further options for improvement may be uneconomic and judgment needs to be exercised as to whether they are justifiable.


Of particular significance in the disaster management context is the principle that decisions should take account of the need to consider carefully rare but severe risks, which may warrant risk reduction measures that are not justifiable on strictly economic grounds.

If the level of risk is high, but considerable opportunities could result from taking the risk (eg, building a dam) then acceptance of the risk needs to be based on an evaluation of the costs of risk treatment and rectifying potential consequences, versus the opportunities afforded by taking the risk. Risk treatment options should consider how risk is perceived by stakeholders and the most appropriate ways to ensure that stakeholders agree to accept residual risks and/or costs of treatment options.

In a systematic risk management approach, it is important that evaluation criteria are established early. Decisions concerning action to be taken may be made based on technical, financial, legal, social, humanitarian or other criteria. Key risk evaluation processes include:

1. Consider significance - how "big / bad",2. Consider acceptability - societal tolerance, and3. Consider economic issues - costs / benefits.

The resolution of issues related to evaluation criteria is not technical, it is political. It is about power and negotiation. If risk is recognized as a socially-constructed attribute, risk communication becomes pivotal; and a focus on the development of procedures for structuring dialogue, to develop shared understandings about risk and its acceptability, becomes crucial.

The criteria should be developed through broad, interactive risk communication processes involving all stakeholders. This reflects the move towards planning with communities rather than for them. Of developing interactive, enabling processes involving (a) the exchange of information and opinion about the nature of risk and (b) the development and implementation of strategies to manage risk. Supporting the case and winning support: analysis of past performance.

Two contrasting States in Australia provide a useful illustration of the effectiveness of mitigation by the different way they managed their respective flood risks. Both States share similar risk profiles -New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland (QLD) each have about 40% of the buildings at risk (from flooding) in Australia. As illustrated in Figure two below, Queensland, which expended little on mitigation, cost the national government dearly in post disaster relief and restoration. New South Wales, which invested in mitigation, cost the national government significantly less.

116 Appendix E

$AU Millions (1989)

Figure 2: National assistance for Mitigation and Relief to the states of NSW and QLD (1984 to 1994)3

How these figures influenced Australia's national policy directions on disaster relief (see the next section of this paper) is an issue of some contention. The value of the figures is limited as they capture only a ten year window, and that particular window caught Queensland with several high consequence, low probability events. Nevertheless, behind the NSW success story are several positive lessons re process4. For twenty years the NSW government policy has encouraged Local Government Authorities (LGAs) to adopt sound floodplain management. Prior to the mid-1980s, LGAs were prohibited from allowing developments below the 1 in 100-year flood line; noncompliance led to financial penalties and liability for damage to any buildings for which they gave planning approval. The state and commonwealth governments funded an extensive program of floodplain mapping and other studies to improve local floodplain management. This markedly coercive approach was replaced with a 'merits' approach. This was co-operative in style, with the state government producing guidelines for floodplain management and encouraging LGAs to undertake studies incorporating community participation, so as to produce plans that were better suited to local circumstances. To date, the majority of the larger LGAs with major flood problems have completed this process, and zoning for future urban developments is linked to risk. Significantly, this process has not been mirrored in Queensland, where significant exposures have flourished.

3 From "Issues in Floodplain Management - a discussion paper, Vol. 1", Report to the National Landcare Program,Department of Primary Industries and Energy, by the Centre for Resources and Environmental Studies, AustralianNational University, May 1996.4 The notes on NSW are from "FLOODING IN AUSTRALIA", by Dingle Smith, Australian National UniversityCanberra, Australia in UN-IDNDR and QUIPUNET Internet Conference 22 Sep - 24 Oct 1997 Floods, Drought:Issues for the 21st Century.


QPI #13

How can we convince the insurance and financial institutions to provide funding for mitigation and to form partnerships with government and private sector organizations to establish a viable

mitigation strategy?


Property and Casualty (P&C) insurance, as a financial hedge against loss, is the financial industry most directly concerned with the problems presented by natural hazards. Over the past year, the Canadian industry has worked through the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) to establish a strategic plan to reduce the loss of life and property that result from natural hazards. The IBC Board of Directors has approved a plan calling for the establishment of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Developing strategies to mitigate man-made hazards, diseases and epidemics are not priority issues for the P&C insurance industry at this time. Some of the other financial service industries do not consider catastrophic losses to be an issue for them at the present time.

Background:In Canada, natural hazards are covered to a greater or lesser extent by property insurance and various other branches of insurance. This entails making a close study of such hazards in order that the loss potential on the other may be estimated. To that end, insurers can draw upon extensive loss data and analyses from all parts of the world.

Mitigation of risk is a role that the property and casualty insurance industry has traditionally embraced. It was the insurance industries that brought together the first fire departments, rope and ladders crews, bucket brigades and ultimately fire codes. Insurers came forth with the necessity for elevator inspections, boiler/machinery inspection and automobile air bags. Now the P&C insurance industry has begun to exercise leadership to mitigate the cost of natural disasters.

Insurance is a potentially powerful tool for encouraging loss reduction measures and for providing recovery funds to disaster victims. Insurance policyholders are protected against a severe loss through the payment of a small premium. At the same time, as premiums are based on individual risk, then insurance should encourage individuals to adopt cost-effective loss mitigation measures in their homes and businesses.

Before 1987 there had never been a natural disaster causing insured losses of more than $1 billion (US). During the past decade, however, there have been 18 natural disasters of this magnitude or sometimes much greater. Population growth, urbanization, economic expansion and climate change all contribute to this disturbing trend. We are becoming more vulnerable, and this growing threat can seriously undermine our economic viability.

During 1996, Canadian insurers paid approximately $600 million in losses due to natural disasters. These record losses provide further evidence of the global trend toward more frequent and severe

118 Appendix E

natural disasters. The industry's experience in 1996 highlights the critical need to reduce the human and financial cost of natural disasters.

Mission of ICLR: Reduce the loss of life and property caused by severe weather and earthquakes through the identification and support of sustained actions that improve society's capacity to adapt to, anticipate, mitigate, withstand and recover from natural disasters.

The Institute will provide a forum for insurers to work with allies to promote loss reduction. Members will receive Institute publications, and will elect the governing Board and may participate in conferences providing an insurance perspective on severe weather and earthquakes.

The Institute's work will be guided by the following principles:

1. The threat of severe weather and earthquakes appears to be increasing; nevertheless sustainedaction can reduce catastrophic losses.

2. Local and individual action is the most effective means of reducing the loss of life and property.3. Communication with the public before a peril strikes is an important means of reducing losses.4. Those who knowingly choose to assume greater risk must accept an increased degree of

responsibility for their choice.5. Partnership is the best approach to resolving shared problems, particularly public safety

concerns.6. Solid, applied research provides an essential foundation for effective action to reduce future

losses.7. Hazard assessment and risk identification are cornerstones of catastrophic loss mitigation.

ICLR's Key result areas: -

Build safer communities• Identify and promote cost-effective approaches so new structures can be built and

existing structures retrofitted to better withstand future catastrophes.

Establish safety partnerships• Provide a forum for the insurance community and concerned allies to work together to

reduce the human and financial cost of natural disasters, and to act as a resource for thestudy of nature's perils.

Enhance industry awareness• Promote awareness within the insurance community of effective disaster risk

management practices through targeted research and dissemination of information.

Promote consumer awareness• Enhance, through the Insurance Council of Canada, consumer awareness of the benefits

of prevention as a means of reducing loss due to catastrophes.

A full version of ICLR's business plan is available through the Insurance Bureau of Canada (416) 362-2031.


QPI #14

Should a percentage of DFAA be allocated for restoration work (which may include upgrading formitigative purposes)? If so, how much?

RESPONDENT: Edda Brown

The DFAA was established for a specific purpose. It is my understanding that it is based on a cost sharing formula negotiated between the provincial government involved and the federal government. There would have to be political will to change the focus of the program and a mutual agreement to share the costs.

I have no strong feeling one way or the other as to whether the DFAA should be used for restoration work.

Restoration would have to be defined with standards set for the allocation of funds. Would it apply to all restoration work? In the transportation industry, in rail for example, the rail company foots the bill for restoration of any track that is damaged in a natural disaster. If the intent is to limit help to the individual to rebuild to better standards after a disaster, there may be some will to support this. At the same time, the question comes to mind that in a flood plain, where flooding occurs year after year, how does a restoration fund apply? If the intent is to have a larger scope, the dollar figure rises substantially and I cannot see government buying into it.

It would make more sense to approach governments with a sound strategy for mitigation initiatives rather than for a request for additional funding for post disaster recovery.

QPI #14 RESPONDENT: Faye

Goodwin

Scope of Mitigation: For the purpose of this discussion paper, "mitigation" is considered to include any activity or action which will a) reduce the potential for another disaster to occur (e.g. fire after an earthquake or health problems caused by improper clean-up after a flood), or b) result in upgrading or improving the ability of a structure or infrastructure to better withstand a repeat occurrence in the future (e.g. upgrade building to current earthquake standard).

DFAA Guidelines: The current program is intended "to help provincial governments meet the costs of disasters which exceed what they might reasonably be expected to bear on their own" and when assessing eligibility for federal assistance "the province involved must have incurred the expenditure (i.e. paid out money)".

120 Appendix E

While the DFAA guidelines are general in nature, and each disaster raises questions relating to their interpretation, funding is not typically permitted for projects designed to reduce vulnerability in the event of recurrence of a disaster. In fact, on page 18 of the guidelines there is reference to non-support for mitigation expenses: "the federal government will not share in the cost of upgrading public works to higher standards that those which existed before the disaster. If a province or municipality wishes to upgrade the facility, only that portion of the work which would have brought the structure to its pre-disaster condition is eligible for federal assistance". Not only are upgrades not covered, repairs to pre-disaster condition for streets, roads and bridges, wharves and docks are not automatically eligible for federal funding.

The only reference to an activity that might be considered as mitigation is on page 8 of the guidelines and refers to eligible costs related to "containment of the extent of the disaster, including emergency provision of essential community services, equipment, material and labour for protective works for individual protection and that of publicly owned institutions and utilities."

While the DFAA program generally does not support or identify costs attributable to mitigation, failure to upgrade public works (e.g. bridges, roads, dams, dikes) to higher standards than those which existed before the disaster could be considered short-sighted and, in fact, impossible in some circumstances (e.g. considering codes related to retro-fitting or renovating existing structures for safety).

We have concluded that, while federal support for mitigation is very important, the DFAA is not the appropriate vehicle. The DFAA is already sufficiently complex for victims, program administrators and others and involves a lengthy timeframe (at all stages) for processing claims. Further, any changes to the program would impact provincial programs and, as such, require negotiations. Given administrative problems reported in the media following the recent flooding, commencing negotiations with respect to the DFAA could open up the program for total review, which might be counter-productive to initiating a mitigation strategy.

Should restoration be considered as eligible expenses under a federal program?: There are many arguments to support funding mitigation activities and it is reasonable to assume that federal dollars spent in this regard could reduce the impact of a disaster or potentially eliminate a re-occurrence. The argument in support of federal funding for restoration is particularly strong in the area of public safety. Consequently, we would recommend that a federal program, separate but supportive of the DFAA and managed by EPC be considered.

How much money should be allocated for restoration work?: As mitigation actions vary significantly by type of event, probability of re-occurrence, magnitude of the damage and also location, it is suggested that a formula based on a percentage of DFAA funds committed as a result of disasters would not be appropriate. For example, requirements in the aftermath of a tornado would be quite different that those following an earthquake or a flood although the overall DFAA costs incurred may be similar. Response to floods would also vary significantly based on cause (e.g. mitigation measures in response to the Durham flood, caused by ice built-up; to the Saguenay, where dam failure was involved; and to flooding caused by rising water levels in Manitoba, would be quite different).


Program Guidelines: It is suggested that program funding should be based on guidelines of approved activities (similar to the DFAA) and, in general, eligible projects should be those that initially address public safety, public structures and infrastructure (e.g. federal docks, provincial buildings, municipal fire stations). For maximum impact and effect the program would require provincial participation and financial support (e.g. cost sharing). An example of federal-provincial cost sharing for mitigation was the national program of flood hazard reduction (managed by Environment Canada) which was undertaken in the 70s and 80s based on a 50-50 federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement.

It is also recommended that funds would also be allocated to provide in depth post-disaster evaluation and follow-up. Benefits from this type of activity would accrue not only to the area affected at a specific point in time, but could have application to many communities in Canada over time. This concept was demonstrated, in the aftermath of the 1979 Mississauga train derailment, when many mitigation measures were implemented or amended, including regulations concerning the transportation, handling, disposal of and destruction of dangerous goods as well as improved training for municipal responders - all measures which have been implemented across Canada.

Individuals and Private Enterprises: Given the reality of limited resources and increasing costs from disasters, we would not advocate providing funding to individuals and private enterprise. Many studies have emphasized the need for individuals to increasingly assume responsibility for their decisions about risk, implementation of mitigation measures, recovery operations, land-use and the purchase of insurance. It is suggested that enhancing financial programs for individuals would be counter-productive and serve to further transfer responsibility to government. The resulting cost to society of people expecting government to hold them harmless in terms of injury, property damage and economic loss is becoming increasingly unrealistic. Consequently, while not encouraging funding for individuals, we suggest that government accept responsibility for providing more relevant information about hazards and mitigation measures, so that Canadians can make informed decisions with respect to their risk and safety.

QPI # 14 RESPONDENT: Chris Tucker

Yes, a percentage should be allotted for mitigation work. Currently, none is set aside; however, Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) rules stipulate, somewhat ambiguously, that "assistance to the reconstruction of private property in disaster-prone areas should only be given once, unless effective action to avoid recurrence by the individual was not practical". Further, "eligible costs shall not include those incurred in dealing with damages to property or facilities in respect of which assistance was previously made available to prevent such damage". Current rules also state that it is "the responsibility of the individual to take reasonable precautions if time was available" - a perhaps coded mitigation strategy. Unfortunately, very few people are aware of DFAA rules before the fact. How much should be allotted for mitigative upgrading is difficult to answer. For any of the typical natural disasters, amounts could be enormous or paltry. To bolt houses onto foundations or strap in water heaters, little money is required. To move houses off flood plains or build ring dykes, significant amounts of money would be needed. For purposes of debate, 15% of all money awarded should be spent on mitigative or risk-limiting efforts.

122 Appendix E

QPI #15

Why have some mitigation strategies been successfully implemented (what are the motivators for designing and implementing mitigation strategies)?

RESPONDENT: Scott Crowley

An organization has one or more of a variety of objectives: profit, growth, public service, or the performance of a governmental function, to name a few. To achieve these objectives, an organization must first reach a more fundamental goal: survival in the face of potentially crippling accidental losses. Beyond mere survival, the top management of an organization also may wish to prevent any accidental losses from interrupting the organization's operations, slowing its growth, or reducing its profits or cash flows by more than a specified amount.

Risk management occupies an important place in the broad definition of management - that devoted to minimizing the adverse effects of accidental loss on the organization. It is those organizations, be it in business, government or in the community that correctly apply the risk management process when developing and implementing their mitigation strategy who are more likely to achieve success. Given this focus on accidental losses, risk management - as a managerial or administrative process -may be defined as a process that includes the four functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling the activities of an organization in order to minimize the adverse effects of accidental losses on that organization at reasonable cost. This definition stresses the managerial aspects of risk management in carrying out decisions with respect to potential accidental losses.Risk management also may be defined in terms of making these decisions. As a decision-making process, risk management is a sequence of five steps: (1) identifying exposures to accidental loss that may interfere with an organization's basic objectives; (2) examining feasible alternative risk management techniques for dealing with these exposures; (3) selecting the apparently best risk management technique(s); (4) implementing the chosen risk management technique(s); and (5) monitoring the results of the chosen technique(s) to ensure that the risk management program remains effective.

Identifying exposure to loss, the first step in risk management as a decision process, requires attention to values exposed to loss, methods of identifying loss exposures, and organizational objectives that should be served by a sound risk management program. Values exposed to loss consist of property, net income, freedom from legal liability, and the services of key personnel. The commonly used methods for identifying loss exposures involve drawing upon information provided by surveys/questionnaires, financial statements, other records and documents, flowcharts, personal inspections, and experts within and outside the organization. Because the exposures to accidental loss that are most important to an organization are those that interfere most directly with its basic objectives, a good risk management program reflects an organization's profit, growth, continuity of service or operations, or humanitarian goals.

The second step of the risk management decision process, examining the feasibility of alternative risk management techniques, involves exploring how various risk control and risk financing techniques could be applied to particular exposures. Risk control techniques include exposure avoidance, loss prevention, loss reduction, segregation of loss exposures, and contractual transfer of


legal and financial liability. Risk financing techniques include retention (through current expensing of losses, unfunded loss reserves, funded reserves), borrowing funds, and through commercial insurance.

The third step in risk management as a decision process is to select the apparently best risk management technique(s). This selection should rest on forecasts of actual accidental losses, of the effects of alternative risk management techniques on these exposures, and of the costs of the various risk management techniques. Based on these forecasts, the best risk management techniques can be selected through either financial criteria or criteria related to such other objectives as stability of earnings and legal and humanitarian concerns. Once these techniques have been chosen, the fourth step in the risk management process is to implement them through technical decisions made by the risk management professional on the basis of his or her particular expertise and line authority and managerial decisions made in co-operation with other managers on when, how and by whom these techniques should be put into practice. Finally, the risk management program must be monitored -the fifth step in the decision process. This is accomplished by setting standards of acceptable risk management performance, comparing actual results with these standards, and correcting substandard performance.

The risk management decision process is both repetitive and self-reinforcing. It is repetitive because past choices of risk management techniques must be continually re-evaluated in light of changes in an organization's activities and resulting loss exposures, changes in the relative costs of alternative risk management techniques, changes in legal requirements, and perhaps even changes in an organization's basic objectives. The risk management decision process also is self-perpetuating because its fifth step, monitoring the results of risk management techniques, will reveal the need to revise decisions when a significant change in conditions - such as in exposures, relative risk management costs, legal requirements, or an organization's objectives - causes the risk management program to fall short of its goals. This reassessment typically returns to the first step of the risk management decision process, identifying and analyzing loss exposures.

Both as a decision process and an administrative management process, risk management may be defined as the process of making and carrying out decisions that will minimize the adverse effects of accidental losses upon an organization. Making these decisions requires the risk management professional to follow the five steps in the risk management process. Carrying out these decisions requires the risk management professional to perform the four functions in the management process. These five decision steps and four management functions come together in The Risk Management Matrix. The interactions among the decisional and managerial aspects of this definition of the risk management process are illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, the Risk Management Matrix.

This process of risk management generates benefits for a particular organization, for the entire economy and for a given community. For an organization, these benefits include reduced cost of risk and lowered deterrence effects from loss exposures. For the entire economy, benefits include reduced waste of resources and improved allocation of productive capabilities.

It should be noted that this process will remain unsuccessful unless

a) people are properly trained and have sufficient experience to effective perform to therequirements of the mitigation strategy; and

b) the interests of other entities who are affected by the implemented risk management measures areweighed in conjunction with one another. In doing so, the person(s) responsible for managing

124 Appendix E

risks in the academic, government, community and business environments must understand and respect the requirements, roles, responsibilities, strengths and weaknesses of one another.

Exhibit 1-1The Risk Management Matrix

Managerial AxisDecision^ Axis \^

Plan Organize Lead Control

Identify and N

Analyze Loss ExposuresExamine Alternative Mitigation TechniquesSelect the Mitigation Technique(s)Implement Technique(s)Monitor Results

QPI # 15 RESPONDENT: Dexada

Jorgensen

Motivators for designing and implementing for industry are life safety, protection of property, environmental issues and sustainability of business. The cost of mitigation strategies is quantified and justified by the cost of loss: life safety being the first consideration. Life safety includes employees and customers. You do not have a business without the employees to run it nor do you have a business without the customers that you 'serve. The utilities have implemented extensive safety programs within their corporations, this is due in part to the nature of the products - gas and hydro - that they provide.

In a business it may be easier to quantify loss in terms of business impact and insurance PML (probable maximum loss) than it may be to quantify loss for governments, as the financial structure of each is so diverse.


Within industry, successful mitigation strategies have matched successful business strategy. To successfully implement mitigation programs the greatest asset is executive that support those programs. The utilities in BC have had the executive support and have successful mitigation and response programs. The Canadian telcos have also had successful mitigation programs as evidenced by the performance of MTS (Manitoba Telephone company) with the floods of the Red River this year and BELL Canada with the Saguenay flooding of 1996.

Specific to BC, economic and social implications (= sustainability of business) are such that if for any reason, the lower mainland is negatively impacted for example for port activity, we could lose that business not just to another port but to another port in another country. The Kobe ports lost business but it was to other ports within their country. We perceive ourselves as the business centre for the Canadian western coast and it makes it imperative that we have measures in place. What do other businesses in the lower mainland have as mitigation and response programs?

It should be remembered though that no matter what programs have been implemented and maintained, there will always be something or some hazard that will impact industry as one cannot predict the exact location, timing and characteristics of hazards whether natural or manmade.

The motivators are life safety, protection of property, environmental issues and economic and social issues.

QPI # 15 RESPONDENT:

John Newton

Why have some mitigation efforts succeeded?the threat has been seen as real,appropriate actions can be taken to reduce losses,the cost of such actions is reasonable,a source of funds is available, andclear responsibility has been identified for implementing the required measures.

What are the motivators?Disasters with significant losses of life,Large property losses (<1B),Perception of a high risk of loss,social responsibility (when the action is taken by a government body),public outcry (lobbying, political pressure) to influence government actions, andavoidance of potential litigation (actions by private sector).

126 Appendix E

QPI # 15 RESPONDENT:

John Salter

The role of the federal government includes a partnership agreement with the states to provide disaster relief payments - this is the major component of the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA) which have been in place for some 20-30 years. The key clause recommended for adoption (4.4)5 states:

"A pre-requisite for the provision of assistance other than for personal hardship and distress is:a) that natural disaster mitigation strategies are in place in respect of likely or recurring disasters, orb) that a commitment is made to develop and implement such a strategy within a reasonable.timeframe."6

The objectives related to clause 4.4 include the following key elements?:1. Through this clause, the Commonwealth seeks to put State and Territory Governments on notice

that in areas where disasters have recurred and have caused significant or widespread communitydisruption and damage. State and Local Government agencies will be required to havedemonstrated acceptable disaster mitigation strategies as a condition for obtaining funding(under NDRA) to assist the restoration and repair of public assets.

2. Broadly defined, disaster mitigation encompasses measures taken in advance of a hazardousevent, which are aimed at reducing or eliminating the disaster risk or reducing the severity of itsimpact on communities and the environment. Disaster mitigation efforts may encompass acombination of disaster prevention and preparedness strategies. Determination of the optimalcombination of disaster mitigation measures for any given area is a matter for relevant State andLocal Government authorities.

3. The Commonwealth encourages State and Local Governments to adopt a risk management-based approach to disaster management (my emphasis) and will expect a commitment todisaster mitigation by responsible Local/State authorities, where risk assessments (the overallprocess of risk analysis and evaluation) have indicated the appropriateness of mitigationmeasures.

4. This approach recognises that what constitutes an acceptable disaster mitigation strategy willvary depending on the nature of the disaster risk in any given area, the area's disaster mitigationcapabilities and the availability of resources.

5. Determination of what constitutes acceptable mitigation strategies is a risk assessment (analysisand evaluation) matter for State and Local Governments, having regard to the relativebenefits/costs of pursuing disaster mitigation measures for any given area.

This model represents a traditional/classic top down public policy stick and carrot approach.

5 The NDRA is currently under review. Any use of the document in this paper is with the recognition that it hasdraft standing only.6 Final Draft, Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements, Department of Finance, Australia, 1997.7 Summarized from the Final Draft, Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements, Department of Finance, Australia, 1997.


A positive approach to implementation: meeting community needs through quality processes

As is true of any social interventions, the "nature" of the mitigation approach, is crucial. For any strategy to be successful it must engender ownership and commitment from all parties influenced by it. In the case of risks associated with disasters, this means stakeholders across the society; from those responsible for ensuring that public safety service provisions exist, through those who create, impose and transfer risk, to those who are our most vulnerable citizens.

Crucial to this process is a focus on vulnerability. Vulnerability is about:• proximity and exposure (to hazard agents)

- this is relatively easily "mapped" in geographic space.• access to resources (things of "use value")

- this is not as easily "mapped" in geographic space, as it occurs in social space.Resources, i.e. things of "use value" raise issues of wealth, power and status. Issues of access toinformation, cultural knowledge, social networks, legal rights, or economic and physical resources.

The Safe Communities^ concept (as promoted by the WHO Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion) provides a valuable model for disaster management in that it has led to successful community action around the world.

The philosophy behind the approach is one of community empowerment. Empowered communities become increasingly able to deal with more and complex issues. Indeed, the community that has established capabilities for building relationships, organizing community intervention, and achieving results has taken the valuable first steps for becoming a Safe Community. This is not accomplished by creating a new structure, it is the result of collaborative efforts of existing organizations, associations, and functions.

Programs to manage risk must identify and characterize the problem and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Key principles in implementing a successful "Safe Community Program" which have direct transfer value to "disaster mitigation" strategies include:• Listen to the community - let them define what they believe are the most important problems• Mobilize all members of a community creatively• Coordinate efforts at a regional level• Raise public awareness to the importance of managing risk, and• Ensure that powerful interest groups support the community efforts

The structure depends on the particular situation, but five objectives can be identified;9. /

• Getting the right participation.

8"Community" is defined as a delineated geographical area or groups with common interests (including serviceproviders such as utilities). This particular concept was developed from an "Occupational Health and Safety" focusapplied to other environments (than work), for other people (than workers).9From "Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.", National Academy of Sciences,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1996

128 Appendix E

Getting the participation right.Getting the right science.Getting the science right.Developing an accurate, balanced, and informative synthesis.

QPI #'s ll, 12,13 and 15 RESPONDENTS: Charlwood and

White A Network of Centers of Excellence for Natural Disaster

Research:

(As an Introduction to this paper, see the related submission by the authors in the "General" section)

CNC-IDNDR proposed a Network to focus Canadian research activities towards the IDNDR objectives in the field of risk management and natural disaster reduction in Canada and internationally.

Specifically, it will provide a vehicle for projects to generate: a disaster database; case studies; epidemiology of disasters; hazard data synthesis; assessment of long term trends; vulnerability and risk assessment models; enhance the effectiveness of warnings systems and natural disaster communications; develop mitigation options and strategies; demonstration projects and a basis for integration into sustainable development planning and environmental assessments. It will result in an international network of research and cooperation in natural disaster reduction as a legacy of the decade.

The concept is one of "partnerships" between stakeholders and research groups to establish linkages for the identification, development and testing of key tools and then allow mechanisms for their implementation in a practical and effective environment.

The Network would be established among selected Canadian and foreign universities and institutes, private sector and industrial organizations, government laboratories, the Royal Society of Canada and the Canadian Academy of Engineering.

The IDNDR Chair(s) would be established at one or more Canadian Universities with a strong background in the related natural sciences and. engineering, economics, environmental and social sciences fields and which had demonstrated leadership in natural disaster research. The initial function of the Chair(s) would be to establish the Network and the integrated research program.

The Chairs and Network would include innovative education and human and technological resources development components including both nation-wide and international modular cooperative graduate programs between industry and the universities.


The Proposed Research Plan:

The Approach:

The approach is for the Network to be an integrated Program for Natural Disaster Mitigation Research and Development. Key topics for the Network have been identified in the CNC Strategic Plan and may include:

• development of a data base of disaster information;• research and demonstration of the socio-economics of disasters and mitigation benefits• studies of causes and effects of disasters in terms of major case histories;• systematic assembly of hazard information and vulnerability models to provide a basis for

comprehensive risk assessments; including recognition of long term trends;• monitoring, warnings and communications systems development;• development of mitigation options, demonstration projects and strategies;• integration into sustainable development planning and environmental assessment; and• innovative national and international education and training programs to support mitigation.

The Chair(s) will promote, build and coordinate the Network and carry out research and educational activities with national and international co-operation, development and application foci.

The Work Program:

The Network and Chair(s) research programs may include:

• design, development and maintenance of a "Disaster Database" of physical, socio-economicand environmental data from historical and future events;

• "Case Studies" of major natural disasters including measurement and reporting of physical,socio-economic and environmental impacts and responses;

• research on the "Epidemiology of Natural Disasters" including natural and anthropogenicfactors;

• "Hazard Data Synthesis" including review of data quality, completeness, accessibility andsuitability for risk assessment of all significant natural hazard types;

• research on the effects of "Long Term Trends" on risk, including demographics, climate change,environmental modification and institutional change;

• development of multi-hazard physical, socio-economic and environmental "VulnerabilityModels" for risk assessment and emergency planning;

• development , verification and operation of "Risk Assessment Models" for prioritization andeffectiveness testing of mitigation measures including risk-response modeling;

• development of communications systems to disseminate alerts and warnings in a timely mannerfor all hazards using advanced sensor, satellite and communications technologies;

• identification of "Disaster Mitigation " opportunities and strategies;• analysis of the "Socio-economics of Disasters" and demonstration of the costs and benefits of

mitigation strategies;

130 Appendix E

development and operation of economically, socially and environmentally beneficial"Demonstration Projects ";development of options for translation of risk assessments into "Planning Decisions" and studiesof options for disaster planning to be integrated into "Environmental Assessments" as part of theIDNDR sustainable development project;development of international "Modular Graduate Programs " in risk management; and"Education and Awareness", undergraduate courses and seminars, lecture tours, workshops,conferences, and training programs.

ESTABLISHING PARTNERSHIPS

Provide a forum for concerned allies (government, industry, NGO and professional andcommunity organizations and associations) to work together to reduce the human and

financial cost of disasters. Encourage widespread, active participation in suchpartnerships to support mitigation activities.

Q# QPI

16 From a government perspective, what are the appropriate levels of authority for mitigation? What incentives could be used to encourage levels of governments towards a National Mitigation Strategy?

17 How can a mitigation strategy balance the benefits of mitigation versus the imposition of government control over lives of individuals and business?

18 Should a national strategy provide for a mandate that utilities coordinate their mitigation activities (with each other and with government organizations and agencies)? Should there be a mandated/legislated requirement for them to be prepared and if so, should specific mitigation levels be specified for utilities (time of recovery, etc.)?

19 • What can we best learn from the efforts of other countries regarding the implementation of mitigation programs?

20 What role would the following types of organizations and/or associations contribute to the development and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy: • national association of emergency managers • industry associations such as MIACC and TRANSCAER • NGOs • the media

Establishing Partnerships: QPI #16 133

QPI #16

From a government perspective what are the appropriate levels of authority for Mitigation? What incentives could be used to encourage levels of government towards a national mitigation strategy?


In this Symposium mitigation is defined very broadly. There are some mitigation measures for each level of government. It is important to have a common understanding of what mitigation measures belong at what level of government, and where responsibilities are shared. Perhaps an approach to this would be to develop a classification or a typology of mitigation measures. A branching tree structure might work. Then there would be a basis for discussing who does what.

This is the perennial Canadian problem of bringing levels of government together to cooperate for the common good. The track record is modest at best in most areas, so do not expect miracles in hazard mitigation. One method much tried in the past has been for the federal government to throw money at the problem and at the provinces and then to require provinces to act according to federal rules. These days seem to be over at least for the time being if not for ever. So the new approach seems to be that you pass the responsibility down as far as it will go, and let the lowest level of responsibility take the consequences. When they cry for help you move in slowly and carefully avoid any long term commitments!

One other thought. Set in motion a process called "the mitigation process.- .steps towards a national strategy". This would have several components such as a commissioned study to lay out present understandings of responsibilities for mitigation measures (a sort of road map of the territory) , a draft blue print of an ideal proposed national strategy, a series of workshops across the country to generate discussion and thinking (on the basis of some studies), and then a national workshop for the launching the New NMS I like to call it the NatMitStrat. Or the New NatMitStrat.

QPI #16 RESPONDENT:

Edda Brown

The use of the word "authority" may not be appropriate. Authority can mean having a legislative base and the requirement to comply or face the consequences. It suggests that someone will be in charge and provide direction.

If we are talking about the power to influence, then the appropriate authorities would be all levels of government.

One incentive to encourage mitigation activities is resources. Both the public and private sectors will have to support the program in order to have a national strategy. It must be shown that the dedication

134 Appendix E

of resources for mitigation purposes will ultimately save the expenditure of vast amounts of resources in recovery from a disaster.

Public awareness will translate into public support. In the transportation industry,.support from the public is high when the population can see a return for their tax dollar. In the airline industry, programs which result in the safety and security of the travelling public are properly funded by both government and industry because anything less would result in disastrous consequences. By helping the individual understand that mitigation efforts may reduce casualties and loss of property, allow for more effective lifesaving response and a quicker recovery period and therefore, lessen the impact of the disaster on him, public buy in to the program will occur.

The private sector whose bottom line is to stay in business and make profits, might be persuaded to become a partner in a mitigation program if it saw an opportunity to heighten its profile in the community. Government is starting to accept private industry sponsorship as a means of funding programs that might otherwise have to be eliminated. The example that comes readily to mind is the RCMP Musical Ride. It would no longer be in existence if CP Rail had not offered to become the sponsor and assume responsibility for all costs except for officer salaries. More opportunities should be offered to private industry to become involved in such initiatives as mitigation. It provides an avenue for them to advertise who they are and raise their profile as a community supporter.

Governments will have to become more creative in searching out resources to support a national mitigation strategy. Downsizing and fiscal restraint continue to be the buzzwords of the day and governments are not willing, nor do they have the means to increase spending.

QPI #16 RESPONDENT: Faye

Goodwin

Appropriate levels of authority : The appropriate levels of authority for mitigation mirror those for preparedness, namely, individuals, the private sector, including NGOs, and all levels of government.

Individuals determine their acceptable level of risk and consequently must assume some responsibility for their choices. To be effective, however, individuals must be knowledgeable about relevant hazards, and aware of practical measures for reducing risk. This leads to the need for government to provide appropriate information (which individuals cannot reasonably be expected to know) and to carry out targeted research.

Private enterprise has responsibility for ensuring implementation of building codes and other regulations in a timely fashion (e.g. sprinkler systems, safe storage and destruction practices, maintenance and training) in order to reduce the risk to themselves and, by extension, to the community at large. As with individuals, private enterprise must accept responsibility for being aware of the natural hazards that threaten their facilities and for reducing their vulnerability.


Realistically "mitigation is local". Generally land use planning, zoning, building permits, enforcement of by-laws, etc., is carried out at the local government level. Consequently, it must be recognized at this level that building safer communities is to everyone's benefit. Much can be accomplished by local government in the area of mitigation through hazard identification, enforcement of standards, assessment and community awareness.

Provincial/Territorial governments are responsible for a myriad of regulations and public works, including flood damage control, building and fire codes and water management and also for emergency preparedness at the municipal and provincial levels. Consequently, provinces have significant authority and responsibility for protecting citizens by implementing, funding and supporting mitigation.

The federal government through various departments and agencies imposes federal statutes, regulations and guidelines related not only to federal land, buildings and other installations but also to private and public jurisdictions. The federal government, through EPC, is also responsible for providing leadership in emergency preparedness. It is suggested that mitigation, in it's various forms, is an important component of any emergency preparedness program.

Some NGOs, Boards and Commissions have legislated and non-legislated responsibilities and programs.

Incentives:Federal Leadership: As a first step, the federal government must articulate a national vision for mitigation in Canada and recognize the importance of mitigation within the overall federal emergency preparedness strategy. At this time, emergency legislation in Canada deals primarily with preparedness and response, both at the federal and provincial levels, with approximately 20% of disaster-related expenditures aimed at prevention or mitigation. Emergency Preparedness Canada and the federal emergency preparedness community at large must expand their focus and expertise in all areas including programs, training, exercising, funding, research and most importantly, annual planning priorities. Given limited federal resources, changing departmental mandates and changing world conditions, it is suggested that program priorities in the area of mitigation for natural and technological disasters might receive strong support within departments, particularly if co-ordinated with other requirements for change.

Funding/Financial Incentives: Ideally the strategy would include financial incentives through JEPP, a new mitigation support program, and through funded targeted research. It is also important that discussion be initiated with the insurance industry with respect to incentives for individuals and industries who implement measures aimed at reducing risk and/or damage.

Partnerships: A level of authority and responsibility for mitigation is vested with all levels of government, with industry, NGOs, quasi-government regulatory boards and authorities. As such there already exists a range of regulations, codes, guidelines and standards. For example, all aspects of residential construction are conducted within a regulatory environment which is generally enforced by municipalities or federal and provincial departments. Regulations cover health, safety and quality control of building products, occupancy and building code requirements at the unit level, zoning, site requirements, planning policies, servicing standards, and the planning approval process

136 Appendix E

at the community level. Any long term successful mitigation strategy must recognize the broad and complex scope of mitigation and the importance of partnerships between levels of government and with the private sector. Partnerships are essential for community-based support and, ultimately, implementation. Associations such as MIACC provide excellent examples of the benefits to be achieved through public and private partnerships.

Information and Communications: Creating public awareness of potential hazards affecting communities is an essential for encouraging implementation of mitigation measures. Currently, there is a wealth of information and research available; however, it is often not widely known, even within the emergency preparedness community. An initial challenge for the federal government would be the cataloguing, management and dissemination of information already in existence, from all sources. Expansion of the already successful EPC SAFEGUARD program would complement and enhance this initiative.

Advocacy: While hazard identification and risk assessment are the cornerstones of mitigation, citizens and industry taking responsibility for making communities safer is the catalyst for change. History has shown us that once citizens become better informed about potential risks affecting their communities and families they begin to demand and initiate change. The key to advocacy is recognition that there is a risk and that reasonable, practical, cost-effective actions can reduce the impact or probability of occurrence. While major natural disasters around the world make front page headlines, in many parts of Canada the risk of flooding, earthquakes or tornados may be seen as very remote and as such are not particularly relevant. However, we suggest that disasters caused by human or technological error, mistake or oversight (e.g. industrial fires, train derailments), where the cause and effect can more readily be "managed" or mitigated will be of interest and concern to the population overall. We must be cognisant of the beliefs of Canadians concerning risk if we are to develop an effective national strategy.

Training: Once hazards are identified and actions demanded, it is critical that appropriate training and practical mitigation actions are available to address the demand immediately (often there is a limited window of opportunity). The federal emergency preparedness community must be challenged to develop a community-based mitigation program that promotes the concept that risk reduction measures at the local level. This will help ensure long-term economic stability and the sustainable development of communities. Training could be delivered at the EPC College and/or available to provinces as an off-the-shelf package.


QPI #16 RESPONDENT:

Blaine Rapp

The lowest level of government is the appropriate level to take the lead on mitigation; they are the closest to the risk. Major assistance in the way of funding, awareness/education programs, consistent application, national expertise, resources physical and human, would be a fundamental requirement from the more senior levels of government.

Incentives;1) A commitment to ensure that all levels of government, as well as all of the stakeholders are

involved in the development of the vision/strategy. Also that they are actively involved in the delivery and evaluation of the vision/strategy and the action plans that will follow .

2) Funding is made available in the form of grants/loans from the Federal government to assist inmitigation projects.

3) The Federal government is to develop a national risk analysis tool to assist other stakeholders inidentifying the high risk areas as well as mitigation options.

4) The development of a national awareness/education program that would assist all stakeholders inidentifying the risks and what to do about reducing/eliminating the risk.

5) Ensure that the strategy/vision is a long term solution and has the funding in place over the longterm.

6) Ensure that realistic action plans as well as timelines are put in place and followed.7) As mentioned earlier, the use of positive/negative incentives could be used.8) Ensure that the insurance industry is involved and are willing to look at premium restructuring

for pro active mitigation programs in the communities.9) Develop pilot projects in different communities for each identified hazard and come up with a

basic handbook that would provide guidelines for mitigation solutions.

QPI #16 RESPONDENT:

Chris Tucker

There is no clear answer to this question. It has been argued that all mitigation is local and to the extent that mitigative projects tend to affect local populations, this is correct. Similarly, land-use control is the primary instrument of urban and rural development planning. It is currently a provincial prerogative, largely delegated to municipal governments to determine, administer and enforce. Nevertheless, given the nature of our federation, all jurisdictions ultimately look to Ottawa for a major portion of their funding so overall control (balance or arbitration) would tend to default to this level. A federal level of authority would pursue nationally consistent mitigation strategies, ensuring that mitigation funds were applied effectively. By implication, funds would be limited where populations and infrastructure were at high risk. Also, funds would not be misappropriated for secondary objectives, such as make-work projects in areas of high unemployment.

138 Appendix E

QPI #17

How can a mitigation strategy balance the benefits of mitigation versus the imposition of government control over lives of individuals and business?



A mitigation strategy can balance the benefits of mitigation versus the imposition of government control over the lives of individuals and businesses. It begins with identifying the hazards and risks, setting guiding principles or strategic land-use development goals, building consensus, and involving the public, the media and the business sector in meeting the desired outcomes.

As the title of this discussion area indicates, we need to build partnerships if we are to realize a balance between government controls and mitigation benefits. There are already existing partnerships that we can re-enforce and build stronger. Various levels of government already exhibit working partnerships. As the federal government sets out broad strategic goals for mitigation and land-use development, the provincial government is able to adapt provincial and regional mitigation strategies to meet local social, economic and environmental objectives all within the context of the national vision. It is only through establishing these linking partnerships between all three levels of government that all three levels are able to realize their goals and objectives. These types of partnerships provide for a commonality of purpose and sustainability.

Partnerships already exist in many other areas at the provincial and local level. These are the type of partnerships where the rubber hits the road - or in another sense, where policy hits reality. Many partnerships already exist that allow regulatory agencies to develop community based programs for mitigation. These exist in many areas such as the partnership between the local fire department, the provincial wildfire agency and the local forested community. All three players build community plans for hazard reduction, fuel modification and fire proofing around hazardous areas. These exist because the hazard and risk have been well documented, the community has been informed and the local authorities (be it provincial or local) are willing to work with the individual, the business or the community to minimize the risk. The key is always that the individual owns the problem first, then the community then the local government.

The strengthening of existing partnerships is important but the establishment of new and innovative partnerships is absolutely necessary. New partnerships need to be established between provincial and local agencies (they provide the link between land-use development strategies and mitigation efforts), the individual, the community and other vested interests. Other vested interests may well be volunteer groups, local or national businesses, insurance companies, emergency response organizations, and local service organizations. They all have a vested interest in a healthy community and the continued health of the region. As the necessity for mitigation efforts evolves


and builds within these partnerships, so does the individuals' commitment and understanding for these measures. The individual begins to believe in the overall health and safety of the community.

A mitigation strategy needs to recognize that it must also nurture internal change within all regulatory bodies. Developing a proactive and positive attitude toward the benefits of mitigation must first begin within government. It must show a desire to find solutions, set internal objectives for mitigation, and carry through by meeting those objectives. Once government shows the way and internal change is nurtured in its' employees, the change will be more acceptable at the community and individual level.

The mitigation strategy must also recognize the need to intensify contact with the public and the media about the benefits of mitigation. This is inherently a long term process but one that can have substantial benefits. The contact with the public must be aggressive, very focused and must identify the need for mitigation. Pictures of standing homes that have survived a wildfire because of mitigation efforts are very graphic and convincing. The mitigation strategy should identify long term goals for public information and education.

The principle point of contact with the public should be through our children. If we are truly going to make a difference in our society to a long term hazard mitigation and risk reduction, then we need to have our young thinking about securing a healthier and safer environment in which to live. We may have had to legislate the use of seatbelts, but it was probably our children that forced us to wear them.

QPI #17 RESPONDENT: Scott

Crowley

An organization often perceives that it has no choice about risk control because a provincial or federal statute mandates specific safety measures. This perception is intensified as a result of the poor communication which often occurs between business, the public and government. Government fails to reinforce the fundamental premise for the requirement of a Strategy. Simply stated, the current dollars spent on mitigation will save a significantly greater amount of future dollars through loss reduction. Theoretically, the Strategy would illustrate the logic behind the policies and procedures which should be implemented in order to mitigate the losses caused by future disasters, resulting in a greater future profitability.

The Federal government, in partnership with Provincial and local governments, must provide leadership, co-ordination, research support, incentives, and resources to encourage communities, businesses, and individuals to undertake mitigation to minimize potential disasters and to employ mitigation in the recovery following disaster. The Canadian public, and business community must be encouraged to understand that mitigation reduces injuries and deaths and property loss, that it enables a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because community infrastructure and critical facilities remain intact, and that it reduces the societal impacts of disaster because it results in less disruption of the social environment.

140 Appendix E

By reducing the impact of natural disasters, the implementation of mitigation plans and procedures will expand opportunity and reward those individuals, businesses, and communities which assumed the responsibility of implementing and participating in a joint mitigation program. The Strategy should identify opportunities to reduce the impacts of disasters, and thus demonstrate the advantages of investing in a safer future. Finally, the Strategy should support the establishment of Federal-Provincial-local partnerships and public-private partnerships as they often are the most effective means of implementing measures to eliminate or reduce the impacts of hazards.

An example how governments can demonstrate the advantages of implementing programs to mitigate loss is illustrated below:

If an organization's net profits are 5% of sales, what is the amount the organization needs toproduce in order to cover one serious injury per year?

Assumption - Accident costs amount to $200,000.00

$200,000 5%

X 100%

X = $4,000,000

Therefore, based on a 5% net profit margin, recovering $200,000 in accident costs requires a sales volume of $4,000,000.

In order to encourage the implementation of mitigation measures by industry, the Mitigation Strategy can provide the various legislative bodies information pertaining to the incentives which could be provided to the business community for undertaking mitigation measures and disincentives for failing to mitigate. Suggested incentives include grants, tax credits and reductions, low-cost and no-cost loans, insurance rate reductions, rebates, free technical assistance, and cost sharing. Suggested disincentives include the elimination of public assistance, refusal of insurance coverage for avoidable damages, increased insurance rates and decreased coverage limits in high hazard areas, and denial of Federal and Provincial grants for projects in high-hazard areas.

In order to balance the benefits of mitigation versus the imposition of government, all parties must be educated in the benefits, complexities, and working relationships required to implement the Strategy. Government must work closely with all areas of the private sector; and provide education in the identification and elimination of loss exposures, develop programs to reduce and control the cost of risk, and respond to the needs of the private sector. In doing so government can more easily ensure that the following are occurring in the private sector:a) Promotion of hazard risk and mitigation solutions among customers and the public.b) Development of business continuity plans and implement mitigation to minimize loss of jobs and

business activity.c) Development of incentives for mitigation with insurance and banking institutions.

It is clearly understood that an accidental loss seldom affects only the owners or managers of an organization. The social consciousness or sense of moral responsibility of the owners or managers


may dictate that accidental losses will have minimal impact on others. However, the business community needs to understand and react to the fact that its employees, customers, suppliers, taxpayers, and members of the general public will also be affected. This same objective may also be supported by promoting the importance of the organization maintaining a good public image. The National Mitigation Strategy must demonstrate that an organization can meet its social responsibility objectives and maintain a favourable public image with a risk management program that protects customers, suppliers, employees, and the general public against losses resulting from disruption in the organization's activities or from injuries to their persons or property caused by these activities.

*

142 Appendix E

QPI #18

Should a national strategy provide for a mandate that utilities coordinate their mitigation activities(with each other and with government organization and agencies)?

Should there be a mandated/legislated requirement for them to be prepared and if so,should specific mitigation levels be specified for utilities (time of recovery, etc)?



Utilities should be required to coordinate mitigation programs, preparedness activities and recovery operations with government and with other lifeline utilities. Whether or not this requires legislation should be evaluated after a volunteer program is attempted.

Utilities are often tied to the lifeline of individuals and the community. Their continued operations and resumption of operations is extremely critical to the comfort level that an individual and community has with an emergency or disaster. Knowing that an utility or group of utilities have a mitigation program that identifies: preparedness levels, an activation strategy, and a tested plan for resumption of service, is extremely important to the community. Individuals and communities have to be assured that their individual needs have at least been identified, and that an utility has a plan for the resumption of service. Businesses have to have the same comfort level.

It could be suggested that a national mitigation strategy would identify which utilities are critical to lifeline services. The strategy would also identify a specific set of measures and activities that an utility should implement. The government could build partnerships for these functions (utilities) that would enhance the utilities standing in the community and in the business environment. An utility that has met all the governments suggestions or recommendations for mitigation preparedness and response could be identified in a unique way that would permit it a preferential standing in the community.

If a strong mitigation strategy is set out by the government, and if there is equally strong community commitment to the principles and goals identified in the strategy, then the government can, (as can the community) challenge the utilities to meet or exceed the measures laid out in the strategy for lifeline safety and recovery. Utilities would be forced (foolish not) to meet the standards outlined.



Jorgensen

The utilities are already mandated within the terms of service from their regulatory bodies. To further mandate or legislate would be premature at best given the state of BC infrastructure. Many do not realize the utilities' levels of service and their extensive safety and mitigation programs far exceeds that of any given area that has not had the earthquakes or hazards that usually precede such activities, and these programs exceeds current legislated requirements.

It is through communication, practice and exercise that we learn what the issues are and how we can take further steps to mitigate the impact of hazards. The BC utilities have visited and communicated with their counterparts in other areas such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and Kobe after their respected disasters to ascertain what results were from their mitigation programs as well as what was learned from the events.

For the telecommunications industry, the major North American vendors of switching equipment now produce one standard level of equipment that will withstand earthquake activity (NEBS standard for zone 4 which exceeds the ANSI standard for same). This means that regardless of geographical location all telecommunication companies get the one standard, which would far exceed requirements in low earthquake risk areas. Further our corporation has developed seismically rated equipment racks (again to NEBS standards for zone 4) in conjunction with UBC and have been not only implementing them in our sites but have been selling them internationally.

In BC, we began a Utilities Emergency Association 1995 to discuss mitigation strategies and programs and implement plans for coordinated response and restoration priorities. (Also for years, BC Hydro and BC TEL have had a joint pole program.) The utilities are involved with national and international organizations to share information with respect to hazards.

In the BC lower mainland the representatives from BC Hydro, BC Gas and BC TEL are very active in regional planning committees and work with the municipalities regarding their requirements, (REPC - Regional Emergency Planning Committee and RECC - Regional Emergency Communication Committee). Further to this the utilities share information about their programs and services to the different levels of government, major customers and the general public. We have been interviewed for the media: radio, television and newspaper for 'QPI's following snow storms, earthquakes, 'radio contests' and other hazards that have occurred in our area.

There are pros and cons for mandates and legislation. Some of the hazards of implementing further mandates or legislation are what those mandates and legislations could be comprised of, and the cost of implementation. Many questions arise about any type of legislation that may be proposed. Would this apply only to existing services or new services or both and what timeline would be given to implement same? If all utilities including competitors are required to meet a minimum level of service then it may be viable at some point. If new services are to be implemented such as 'Local Number Portability' again mandates or legislation may be viable. Costs for mitigation and implementation at the onset of a project is far less than retrofitting.

144 Appendix E

Will the market drive the requirements? Unless there is a major disastrous event, probably not in sufficient numbers to warrant independent evolution in a newly competitive markets. Legislation and mandates may be required for the future or for new services that are outside the realm of the traditional utility companies who have already taken extensive measures for mitigation.

QPI #18 RESPONDENT:

John Salter

Yes to the first of these questions, as a fundamental principle of planning. Utilities have long been recognized as key "lifelines"'0 custodians. For the management of lifelines, Australia has developed national guidelines based on a risk management approach. These guidelines focus on the significance of utilities to communities and recognise that there is a requirement to integrate these considerations within the community approach outlined above. However several of the key issues we face arise from general changes which Australian governments are increasingly adopting and relate not only to utilities but to many other areas of society.

The general changes include the following key issues:• getting the 'right things' done at the most appropriate levels of government;• partnerships with the private sector and with the community; with government withdrawal from

activities which the private sector or community itself can undertake;• quality assurance - the need for excellent contract administration of outsourced activities.

There are risks inherent in these changes. The disaster management capability of the society can be compromised by such things as:• public sector enterprises focusing on "core business" and no longer having the resources or

systems for their occasional disaster involvement;• privatised former public utilities no longer prepared to assist the community in disasters and bear

the costs as community service obligations;• resources supplied by contractors, whose concerns about their Occupational Health & Safety

obligations and their other contracts may inhibit their ability to meet requests;• financial and operational systems optimised for 'peace time' situations and not having sufficient

slack to cope with disaster-related peaks; and• a community more ready to litigate in response to others' perceived failures to perform.

10 Lifelines - systems or networks which provide for the movement of people, goods, services, and information upon which the health, safety, comfort and economic activity of the community depend. This definition has been adopted by Australia in its national guidelines for managing.lifelines, and is derived from PLATT, R. H., "Lifelines: An Emergency Management Priority for the United States in the 1990's", in DISASTERS , 1991 VOL. 15 (2): 172-176


In general, even though particular services and their delivery can be privatized and outsourced, liability for governments to ensure public safety remains. Potential problems exist in the area of "quality" in project managing the contractual issues related to community service obligations (eg floodplain management within corporatized water agencies falling by the wayside as it does not represent "core business"). Matters of public safety need to be carefully considered whenever government engages in, inter alia, trade or commerce.

Mandated thresholds

Yes and no to the parts of the second of these questions, as it is both particularly difficult and quite unreasonable to establish "get back to business" timeliness in the context of uncertainty which accompanies and characterizes disasters. This should be a principle comfortably embraced by Canada, a country which I had been told had, when faced with the need to select a national slogan (as per "as American as apple pie") rejected simplistic notions such as maple syrup and adopted "...as Canadian as possible under the circumstances".

That there should be "a mandated/legislated requirement for them to be prepared" is notunreasonable. Flavors of such a "threshold" approach appear in paragraph 1.11 of the guidelines to clause 4.4 of Australia's Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements. This paragraph (1.11) specifies that States/Territories that have received NDRA funding assistance for the restoration and repair of $4 million or more, in any given financial year commencing 1996/97, will be required to provide details (along the lines of paragraph 1.9 and 1.10) of disaster mitigation measures implemented or proposed to be implemented in areas where disasters have recurred and have caused significant or widespread community disruption and damage, involving State/Territory Government expenditure per disaster in excess of $.5m. for the replacement/restoration of public assets.

Paragraph 1.9 provides an example of the level of detail and outlines the requirement for ... information on one or more of the following:

(a) any proposed risk assessment re disaster mitigation plans in the recurrent hazard area;(b) expected commencement date of risk assessments in the relevant area; or(c) any completed risk assessments together with either;

• a proposal/timetable for implementing the assessment's recommendations, or• reasons for the decision not to proceed with a disaster mitigation strategy and

alternative proposals to minimize the impact of future disaster recurrences andprotect the community (i.e. people, public & private property and infrastructure)in the disaster area.

In exercising the responsibilities of government at a national level it is a reasonable expectation (of citizens) that policy instruments such as those outlined above should be developed and used.

146 Appendix E

QPI #19

What can we best learn from the efforts of other countries regarding the implementation ofmitigation programs? :• ■


The only national mitigation program I am aware of is in the United States. Australia has approached the issue at a regional level and only in a preliminary manner from what I have heard. Developing countries such as Bangladesh have addressed mitigation directly though international aid projects for shelters. From Canada's perspective the efforts we can best learn from are likely to be in the Untied States, if we are looking for parallels at the national level.

First, however, we need to acknowledge the significant differences in the social, economic, and political climates in these two countries. What "works" (or doesn't) in the United States will not necessarily work in Canada, nor may we wish to even try to make certain programs work. At essence they may be contrary to established inter-jurisdictional relationships. What we can look at is the concept not necessarily the actual program. For example it is unlikely that federal departments in Canada will start dealing directly with municipalities, even if this was a good idea. Today's fed/prov relations would not allow it. So shelve any 'lessons' that require such macro-micro linkages to be successful.

Second, programs need a source of financing. The US approach, through adjustments to the Stafford Act, provide funds automatically when there is disaster assistance provided. The rate is now 15% of the disaster funds. Funds must be spent in the area affected by the disaster (i.e. Northridge mitigation funds cannot be spent in Florida). Mitigation projects must be cost-shared (in the order of 75 fed/25 state though this is subject to negotiation).

Third, implementation of mitigation activities takes a substantial effort as they often involve some change in thinking by recipient agencies and organizations, rather than a simple construction project. Activities are not quick and time-limited, but slow and on-going. Education and the development of a loss reduction (mitigation) culture is part of the objective.

Fourth, partnerships will be an integral component for long term success. The responsibility for loss reduction must be shared. I am unsure of whether the US program has actively developed this aspect. Certainly the notion of public-private partnerships (PPP or 3P) is currently developing in related areas of loss reduction and business protection. For Canada homeowners, small business, corporations, and local, provincial, and federal governments must be involved.

. /Take care to avoid the temptation to 'redefine' current activities as mitigative. If mitigation becomes topical (as was sustainable development, and now PPP) there is the risk of clouding clear action with numerous add-ons. Is education mitigative? What about warnings? Pamphlets? And so on. All these actions may have an indirect affect on losses but they do not, by themselves reduce losses. A clear definition of mitigation and where it fits in the panoply of terms related to emergency management (including this term) will be a necessary part of the foundation of a National Mitigation Strategy.


QPI #19 RESPONDENT:

John Salter

Some of our current disaster management processes are historical legacies of narrow constructs. The scientific study of hazards has largely driven the way we view and manage risk. The "turf sensitivity of organisations with responsibility for public safety defined in relation to particular hazard agents (such as fire and flood) has reinforced the hazard focus.

Constructs such as "PPRR" (Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery) have facilitated the development of the simplistic notion that there is a linear and temporal relationship between elements viz. first P then P then R and finally R, thereby becoming an encumbrance to effective management. Such misunderstanding has fostered attitudes of division and hierarchy, such as "my hazard is more important than yours", or "my Response is more important than your Prevention".

The shift toward risk management has significant implications for emergency management service provision, especially in terms of implementation and organizational change. These include:• increased service provision diversity (including a shift to prevention);• community empowerment and responsibility; and,• increased inter-agency cooperation.

Under the broad public policy umbrella of "risk management for safer communities", we are moving into the domain of client focused service provision. Several new skill sets will be required of the disaster management community, for example:• risk communication processes (based on planning with, not for) to negotiate appropriate levels

and types of disaster management service provision will require facilitation skills to conductservice reviews and agree service level definition with clients; and,

• contract specifications associated with outsourcing disaster management service provision willneed a thorough understanding of and sensitivity to implications in order to achieve appropriateoutcomes and performance indicators.

Lessons from the recent review of New Zealand emergency management service provision indicate "risk management will play a central role in the work of any new national organization ... (as) a source of practical advice on risk management for local authorities and others, ... (and) to advise Ministers on the best allocation of central government funding and resources across different risk categories". Further, "those responsible for public safety and for managing infrastructural assets ... are obliged to assume full responsibility for managing the risks, i.e. to identify the hazards, to assess the risks, and to take whatever precautions are required. Support from central government is conditional upon proper risk management having been demonstrated." 11

11 HELM, P., "Integrated Risk Management for Natural and Technological Disasters", in TEPHRA, June 1996 VOL. 15(1): 5-13

148 Appendix E

QPI #20

What role would the various types of organizations and/or associations contribute to the development and implementation of a national Mitigation Strategy?


National association of emergency managers

These managers must lead the whole process. They must act like coordinators trying to make people with various interests work together around a table. Following the Saguenay flooding of 1996, the government of Quebec has put in place what is called Comits de concertation des bassins de rivires . These organizations bring together stakeholders with a role to play in the management of dams and flow of rivers, and make them enter into discussion in order to reach a consensus. The role of environment specialists and of emergency managers is very important here. The model can be applied to mitigation measures in general.

The only problem is, what do we do in the case there is no consensus? This is where legislation is helpful, if it is enforced.

Some specific groups of first-responders have an important role to play. At the start, we mentioned the role of firefighters in prevention. The same can be said of police forces with regard to crime.

Industry associations such as MIACC and TRANSCAER

These associations must lead mitigation regarding technological risks. Their role is one of self-regulation, i.e. the role that we take on for ourselves before being forced to by legislation. This can also be done by every private firm in Canada, but associations like MIACC can play a very important part.

The only problem here is the lack of power of these associations in dealing with the problem of recalcitrant companies.

NGOs

The role NGOs can play is an important one. Here, the model of the Red Cross comes to mind, their water safety program for example. These organizations can also sensitize their members in a community.

The mediaV

The role of the media is vital. They can first of all put an emphasis on certain risks and their consequences. They can talk about risk management and the way it affects a community.


They will probably not agree to become part of a formal mitigation mechanism, due to the fact that they prefer to keep their distance and their neutrality. But they could be good risk communicators, by giving information about what is done in the field of mitigation, the reason for such action, etc.

QPI #20 RESPONDENT:

Peter Walton

"In the old days men had the rack. Now they have the press."- Oscar Wilde

"Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."- Napoleon I

Building a trust-based rapport with the news media is key to any successful public awareness and communications program. The media play a pivotal role in ensuring essential information is released to the public in an accurate, timely before, during and after a national mitigation strategy is formulated.

Any policy formulation process must include a willingness to work with the news media— especially TV News— to communicate its role, objectives and importance to key audiences.

In modern Canadian society the public's opinion and perceptions are often influenced and shaped by news media coverage. The public's support for a national mitigation strategy hinges on a recognition of the role, challenges and benefits of using the news media to reach the public.

Creating a working partnership with the media takes time. The groundwork must begin now, in policy formulation stage and should include learning how the news media works, what is '"news", what the media require to cover the news and how best to communicate mitigation strategy message during interviews.

Media training - learning the hows, whats and whys of working with the media - bridges the gap between the media and policy makers. Policy makers are educated, motivated and rewarded for concentrating on details, measureables and careful second thought. Whereas media people concentrate on personality, conflict and dynamics. They are motivated by competition, prestige and shaping public opinion.

Better understanding the media allows policy makers to appreciate and exploit the agenda similarities they share with the media business. Both strive to gather information and present it to the public in a sellable package.

150 Appendix E

QPI #20 RESPONDENT:

Michael Salib

Association of Emergency Mangers

I am not aware of the role of the Association of Emergency Mangers (AEM), but I would hazard a guess that the association's main role is the professional development of emergency managers. In this context their value and role would continue to be in advancing the skill levels of the profession.

However, I would like to add that there are other associations in Canada with a similar mandate (that is, if I was right in guessing the AEM mandate), e.g., ACRSP (Association of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals) and CSSE (Canadian Society of Safety Engineering). All of these associations have a role in a national mitigation strategy particularly in maintaining and upgrading the skill levels of those involved in the mitigation field.

TRANSCAER

TRANSCAER is not an industry association, it is however, an initiative of an industry association - the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association (CCPA). The initiative aims to raise the levels of awareness of the carriers of products of the member companies of the CCPA, as well as, the communities through which the products are transported. The ultimate goal is to raise the levels of preparedness to enable the carriers and the communities to adequately respond to transportation accidents to minimize the impact (consequence) of such accident.

CCPA and other industry associations (whose members are generators of risk) have an important role to play in the development and implementation of a national mitigation strategy.

MIACC

MIACC is also not an industry association. It is an independent neutral forum for governments, industry and other interested parties to develop mitigation (prevention, preparedness and response) tools and to encourage their implementation at the community level to protect life, health, property and the environment from hazardous substances.

Mitigation tools developed through the MIACC consensus process include national standards, guidelines, methodologies, courses and workshops on topics such as:

• risk assessment

• land use planing and control

• joint industry and municipal emergency preparedness

• emergency planning

Establishing Partnerships: QPI #20

151

• process safety management

Recently, MIACC launched its SAFER COMMUNITIES initiative aimed at bringing industry and local officials in a community together to achieve public safety, plant safety and protection of the environment from hazardous substances.

In its current role MIACC addresses Canada's needs in mitigating disasters involving hazardous substances. It has the flexibility to adapt to any role (within the scope of its mission) asked of it in the larger context of an all hazards national mitigation strategy.

NGOs

Organizations such as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Ham Radio clubs, etc. play a valuable role in mitigating the effects of disasters and must be considered when developing a national strategy.

Organized labour groups (unions) should be also consulted in the development of such a strategy.

Media

Communicating with the public before, during and after a disaster can be best achieved through the media. However, the media is not an easy group to deal with (manage), particularly before and after disasters, unless there is controversy!

. /■

GENERAL COMMENTS

General Comments 155

GENERAL COMMENTS RESPONDENT: Edda Brown

Business Resumption Planning as a Mitigation Tool

In 1992, Treasury Board introduced an initiative known as Business Resumption Planning. By strict definition, Business Resumption Planning (BRP) is "planning to ensure the continued availability of essential services, programs and operations including all resources involved."

In the federal government context, it prepares government institutions for recovery from any event that may interrupt an operation or may affect service or program delivery. BRP is concerned with the recovery of internal operations.

BRP is a form of mitigation strategy adopted by the federal government to ensure essential services are available to the public. This includes facilities and operations as well as information technology systems.

Therefore, in terms of technological disasters it makes sense to have a business resumption plan. Most organizations realize the importance of this type of planning and have allocated funding to ensure a plan is in place. Private industry has also adopted the BRP concept and all large corporations in the technology field or those relying heavily on technology have developed plans.

Business Resumption planning can serve as an example of mitigation activity which has resulted in savings in the face of disaster. A case used to demonstrate the point to Transport Canada was the example of an American banking institution located in a high rise tower which suffered a devastating fire. The bank, which had a plan, had its essential services back on line in twenty four hours and experienced no lost revenues as a result of the fire.

It is this type of example that must be used to support a national mitigation strategy. Initial research should be undertaken to determine what other types of mitigation activities are in place across the country. Perhaps there will be people participating at this symposium who have some examples. This will be a start and we should build on those.

The private sector whose bottom line is to stay in business and make profits, might be persuaded to become a partner in a mitigation program if it saw an opportunity to heighten its profile in the community. Government is starting to accept private industry sponsorship as a means of funding programs that might otherwise have to be eliminated. The example that comes readily to mind is the RCMP Musical Ride. It would no longer be in existence if CP Rail had not offered to become the sponsor and assume responsibility for all costs except for officer salaries. More opportunities should be offered to private industry to become involved in such initiatives as mitigation. It provides an avenue for them to advertise who they are and raise their profile as a community supporter.

156 Appendix E

Governments will have to become more creative in searching out resources to support a national mitigation strategy. Downsizing and fiscal restraint continue to be the buzzwords of the day and governments are not willing, nor do they have the means to increase spending.

GENERAL COMMENTS

RESPONDENT: Ian Burton A

National Mitigation Strategy

It is suggested that mitigation be defined as "sustained action to reduce the risk to life, property and the environment from Hazards". Three kinds of hazard are mentioned...natural, diseases and epidemics, and technological. By this definition a large part of Canada's economic and social activity is already contributing to mitigation. These activities are to a large extent successful. Buildings in Canada do not get blown down or up. Expectation of life is amongst the highest in the world and continues to increase. The population enjoys a high degree of health and safety.

On the principle of "if its not broken don't fix it", it is not immediately clear from the symposium Participation Guidelines what the problem is. An initial observation therefore is that a clear and precise diagnosis is needed. Only when there is a good common understanding of the problem is there any hope of moving towards an agreed strategy to correct or reduce it. I therefore urge that one task that should be assigned is the preparation of a good diagnostic assessment. This is not as simple as it may sound. While there is some evidence of rising insurance claims, and some highly salient news stories on major disaster events in recent years, the full picture of causes, trends, and reasons for current successes and failures is by no means complete.

Let us assume that we do know what the problem is or have a

sufficiently good intuitive grasp of it. Then the central elements in a national mitigation strategy probably have to do with responsibility, coordination, and incremental improvement.

1. In my view considerable confusion is or can be created by lack of a clear sense of who isresponsible for what - the notion of "locus of responsibility"^;, A good principle to follow isthat responsibility should begin with the individual, and only be extended higher up the socialand organizational scale when the response capacity of the individual is exceeded. First aidshould come from family, friends and the local community. At each stage responsibility shouldbe centered on the smallest possible unit capable of coping. Only when these are overwhelmedshould higher order units such as large corporations, provinces and the federal governmentbecome involved. Experience shows that where higher orders step in prematurely a sense ofdependency is encouraged, which can in a variety of ways serve to increase losses rather thanreduce them.

2. Nevertheless it is clear that in large scale disasters all levels of organization from the individualto the federal government have a role to play. The assignment of roles and responsibilities to the

12 Burton, I.

General Comments 157

proper and appropriate level is another major question. Once the roles are assigned and clearly understood, the matter of coordination becomes crucial. Probably much of the current difficulty in mitigation of hazards in Canada is the lack of a clear understanding of locus of differential responsibilities, and the coordination of actions and policies.

3. The correct locus of responsibility, and proper coordination are both prerequisites to a process of incremental improvement. It is neither possible nor desirable to create or design a new system from scratch. It is more appropriate to learn from recent and current experience, and find ways of steady improvement.

From this it is clear that a national mitigation strategy in some sense already exists. The task is to properly identify its structure and the current allocation of responsibilities, and the present pattern of coordination, and to identify its weaknesses and shortcomings and provide for step by step improvement. 13

GENERAL COMMENTS Mitigation Symposium:

Towards a Canadian Policy

Contributions by

Robin G Charlwood, Ph.D., F.C.A.E., P.Eng. Vice President, Acres International Limited Member, Canadian National Committee, IDNDR

and

Kathryn WhitePresident, Black and White Communications IncMember, Canadian National Committee, IDNDR

The IDNDR Strategic Plan, the Risk & Society Project and a Research Program Proposal to Support the Development of Natural Disaster Mitigation Strategies

13 Burton, I.14 Horizontal integration refers to the coordinated effort of government departments and agencies at one jurisdictionallevel, as well as cooperation among private companies across different industrial/commercial sectors. Verticalintegration refers to communication within national hierarchical structures, generally, but not exclusivelyintraministerial liaison. The overall objective is to enhance information flows and facilitate broadly based decision-making in a trans-organizational setting.

158 Appendix E

Introduction

This Symposium is to focus on the development of a framework for mitigation strategies within the context of some practical terms:

• eliminating (or avoiding) the hazard;• reducing the risk of a hazardous event taking place;• reducing the consequences of a hazardous event; and• spreading the risk.

These issues have been addressed by the Canadian National Committee (CNC) for the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) and a short set of priority programs have been proposed. These include the Risk & Society project and a proposal for an international network for research through a "Network of Centers of Excellence for Natural Disaster Research" and an "IDNDR Chair" as an integrated multi-disciplinary international research and development project on natural disasters and their mitigation.

It is suggested that in order to establish a viable strategic mitigation policy it is necessary to increase risk awareness and knowledge in all sectors of society and then develop an information base on hazards, vulnerability and consequences in a socio-economic framework and carry out comprehensive risk assessments. This information base can then be used to develop quantitative social and economic arguments to support otherwise tenuous arguments on the value of mitigation investments within defined societal frameworks.

Background:

It is increasingly recognized that the social, economic and environmental costs to Canadian and international society due to natural disasters are escalating rapidly but could be substantially reduced by investments in prevention and mitigation^. In 1996 there have been a series of natural disasters in Canada with many lives lost and economic losses in the case of the Saguenay River floods approaching $1 billion. It has been estimated that the economic cost of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in the Vancouver region could be as much as $30 billion.

An international review of recent natural disasters, the magnitude of human and economic impacts as a threat to social development and the role of the United Nations in promoting IDNDR initiatives in a coordinated international effort is attached in the Appendix..

A recent study by the Institute on Governance^ responds to the increasing risk exposure of

1 Prevention Pays: The Socio-Economic Benefits of Preventing Disaster, Valerie Wannington, CNC-IDNDR,October 1996

2 Colloquium on Risk Management: Report and Recommendations, Institute on Governance, Ottawa, March 1994

General 159

government and discussed options for the government to reduce its involvement in risk management and manage public expectations downwards through a political science approach.

The original IDNDR objectives address the natural, social and environmental science program needs and propose:• comprehensive assessments of natural hazards, vulnerability and risk;• development of national and local risk mitigation strategies;• strengthened international cooperation in disaster reduction; and• improved community awareness and education in risk management.

Recently the IDNDR Secretariat has prepared a project addressing disaster reduction in the context of sustainable development 17. The objective is to integrate risk mitigation into a framework for sustainable development planning. It emphasizes the cross-sectoral nature of risks and the need for comprehensive identification of hazards including climate change effects on food and agriculture as well as settlements. Specific programs focus on urban vulnerability, disaster reduction in small island states, development planning and project implementation, and thematic research. CNC is invited to participate in these projects and thus certain items of the proposed research respond to this initiative.

Status in Canada:

Although Canada has a substantial program of natural hazard monitoring and assessment, as do several other developed countries, there are major gaps in knowledge and expertise in the application of this data and experience to the evaluation of the vulnerability of communities and infrastructure, quantitative assessment of the risk or consequences of such events in terms of safety, economics, environment and sustainable development and the development of effective mitigation measures and strategies 1°.

The Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP) has made considerable progress in addressing the flood risk in most parts of Canada. While the FDRP has identified many areas of regular or periodic flood risk, substantial damages still occur, e.g. the Saguenay floods. This is due partly to continued use of land in flood plains, partly due to the unavoidable occurrence of extreme events (with lower probabilities of occurrence than those used in planning), and in some cases the need for more integrated reservoir and river basin emergency management decision making practices. The land use issues can be addressed through various financial, insurance and legal strategies based on more comprehensive flood damage data, improved understanding and application of responsibilities and

3 Disaster Reduction for Sustainable Development - Project Description, Secretariat, IDNDR, Geneva, May 1996

1 Davenport, A.G., and R.G.Charlwood, CNC-IDNDR's Program for Comprehensive Natural Hazard and Vulnerability Assessments, Proceedings of the Tri-Lateral Workshop on Natural Hazards, Merrickville, AES, February, 1995

160 Appendix E

incentives. A key part of this will be the development of a comprehensive data base on flood damage costs, and answers to the questions on who pays, how much is insured, what is the government's liability, how do the uninsured losses get absorbed, what are the indirect commercial and social costs, etc. Flood frequency issues can benefit from risk assessments examining optimization and effectiveness of flood management and design criteria and consideration of impacts of long terms changes such as climate change. The operational issues can benefit from more widespread application of integrated river basin and facility decision support and warning systems.

Earthquake risk has been receiving increased attention on the West Coast. Public awareness has been stimulated by discussion of the potential for a great offshore subduction event. The onshore risk is in fact dominated by more moderate and more frequent events but, even so, the probable maximum loss has been estimated to be in the order of $30 billion. The quantification of such estimates is based on regional seismic hazard assessments with some local treatment of local effects or micro-zonation to account for surface amplification or liquefaction and then very simplified vulnerability models largely based on US ATC, largely California based, damage matrices. There is a clear need for improved micro-zonation of hazards and more specific vulnerability models which address property and environmental damage as well as human safety at various levels of risk. It would also be worthwhile to know how the risk varies with expected frequency of occurrence, that is to know the risk from smaller and more frequent events, probably still very large in dollar terms. This is particularly true in eastern Canada where systematic risk assessments have not been made and public awareness and insurance cover for earthquake risk is lower, particularly in the large urban centers such as Montreal or Ottawa where in fact the earthquake risk is appreciable.

Atmospheric extremes in terms of wind, precipitation and temperature are clearly also significant and although, for instance, sophisticated wind tunnel modeling is performed on critical structures, very little progress has been achieved in terms of comprehensive risk analyses. To achieve this, there is a need to develop the statistical data base of the hazards, then build vulnerability models for various structure and facility types, again including direct and indirect physical, environmental and social impacts and then estimate risks and assess the effectiveness of various mitigation options.

The Canadian insurance industry has been examining its role and identifying research need to better identify and assess risk, develop bases for acceptance and strategies for control and management of riskl9.

The matter of validation of risk analyses and assessment of effectiveness of mitigation programs and proposals is one requiring immediate development. There is a program for assessment of the FDRP effectiveness but not one for other hazards. A scheme for earthquake mitigation measures effectiveness assessment is under development in the US. It will be necessary to build confidence in

1 Proceedings of Workshop on Improving Responses to Atmospheric Extremes: The Role of Insurance and Compensation, Toronto, 1994, Environment Canada

General 161

the financial models of risk underpinning policy change proposals. Our models also need to look ahead and be appropriate to address the major technological, demographic and environmental changes taking place.

Canada has a breadth of geographic and climatological conditions and extremes which has exposed Canadians to most types of natural hazard and has required, and still requires, great ingenuity and resourcefulness to address these challenges at home. This breadth of expertise in the private and public sectors can now play a major role in international disaster reduction and thereby contribute to global sustainable development, humanitarian relief and international trade.

Mitigation Options

The development of mitigation strategies is the essential "closing of the loop" in natural disaster reduction. It is the vehicle to implement change and reap the benefits to society. However, the task is complex, it is dependent on establishing clear and complete definitions of risks, recognizing hazards, vulnerabilities and consequences, including their frequencies and specific impacts. To complement this it is necessary to invoke the participation of all significant stakeholders: developers, owners, tenants, financiers, insurers, regulators etc., at both the national and the local levels, in the development and implementation of disaster reduction strategies.

Physical options may be structural measures, such as improvement in the quality of construction, building upgrades, the provision of redundancies in supply lines, warnings and communications links etc.,. or simple items such as attachment of water tanks and other key items of equipment.

Financial options may include recognition of the economic benefits of upgrades by owners and financiers leading to investment by owners, or indirect measures such as via insurance premium adjustments, property tax formulae.

Regulatory options may include modification to building codes based on comprehensive data bases and expert assessments of performance, establishing criteria in terms of estimated risk to society, linkages to insurance and financing, etc.

Economic and political options may include approaches to sustain local or regional economies and societies. It will be essential to recognize all facets of government and ownership, their stakes and identify practical solutions and clear incentives for implementation.

Canadian National Committee of IDNDR Strategic Plan:

The CNC-IDNDR was established by the Government of Canada in 1993 under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada and the Canadian Academy of Engineering. It is comprised of representatives from a variety of government agencies, private industry, academia, and international

______________________________________________________________________________________

162 Appendix E

development organizations. The CNC includes a diverse range of disaster management experience and as an independent body, the Committee carries out program reviews, develops and proposes national plans of action, and acts as a catalyst in their implementation.The Committee carried out a review of Canada's contribution to the IDNDR and published the Canadian National Report as a mid-term review for the 1994 World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction^. As a result of this report, and subsequent reviews and planning, activities for the balance of the Decade will focus on the following objectives:

• development of national and local risk mitigation strategies;• comprehensive assessments of hazards and vulnerability leading to the development of national

risk assessments;• enhanced disaster communications, warnings systems and information exchange;• strengthened international cooperation in the area of disaster reduction; and,• improved community awareness of risk.

A framework to achieve these objectives is outlined in the CNC-IDNDR Strategic Plan^l. Task forces were created by the CNC to address each of the following key topics. Within each topic a multi-tiered approach is being taken by Committee to:• identify, review, endorse and advocate continuation of key ongoing programs by various

agencies;• propose, seek support and assist in establishing ways to implement new initiatives which would

more completely achieve the above set of objectives; and• recommend and advocate immediate implementation of selected priority programs.

As a result of this process the CNC recommended implementation of the following as priority programs:

Awareness and Education:

• Risk & Society Project

Risk Assessment:

• An IDNDR Chair for Natural Disaster Mitigation Research• A Network for Research and Development for Natural Disaster Mitigation• A Canadian natural Disaster Panel

1 Canadian National Report, Prepared by the CNC for the IDNDR Mid-Term Review and the 1994 WorldConference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan, May 1994

2 CNC-IDNDR Strategic Plan - A Framework for Action, CNC-IDNDR, Royal Society of Canada/CanadianAcademy of Engineering, Ottawa, November 1996.

General 163

International Co-operation:• Project Storm Shelter - Women in Disasters

Conclusions and Recommendations

In order to establish effective mitigation policies it is necessary to define a policy framework and carry out a wide range of interdisciplinary research to establish a reliable data and knowledge base upon which acceptable mitigation arguments can be based.

GENERAL COMMENTS


A number of the questions in various discussion areas touch on the subject of demographics, public participation and compliance. These three topics are extremely important in the long term strategy and implementation of a national mitigation policy.

The demographic profile in Canada is extremely important to government, business and public participation in every aspect of Canadian life. Trends, fads and public opinion can all be traced to the aging of the baby boomer generation in Canada. It is estimated that just under a third of the Canadian population falls into the baby boomer generation. This generation is getting older and as it ages it finds itself having more time to consider emerging social, political and environmental issues.

This generation is very mobile, very educated and without a doubt the most influential, economically as well as politically. It has clout and it is well-informed.

A national mitigation strategy must have a long term perspective. Land use decisions and hazard mitigation will take time to evolve and will take time to implement. The baby boomers can have and will have a significant impact on future decision making and policy development in this area. As the baby boomers begin to retire, (it is happening now) they will have more time, more money and more influence than any generation before them, and for that matter, to follow them. Understanding what makes them tick and what will drive their decision making will significantly influence any future mitigation strategy. If the baby boomers can be convinced that hazard mitigation and risk reduction will prolong their lifestyle, benefits future generations and provide for safer and healthier communities, their buy-in is assured.

What also needs to be considered is where the baby boomers will ultimately reside in Canada (rural vs. urban) and what will predominate their retirement lifestyle. Social behavior specialists and others that study demographics should be invited to review a mitigation strategy based on the long term need to change a cultural view of mitigation and the need for it. When baby boomers begin to retire to the countryside, will they be prepared to participate in regional mitigation plans and processes or will they want to remove themselves from the onslaught of rules and procedures. Why

164 Appendix E

is it that the person who moves to the forested area moves there to avoid taxes but still wants the government to provide fire protection.

Public participation is extremely important to successfully implementing a mitigation strategy. At the individual and community level, the public needs to be convinced of the merits and benefits of hazard mitigation. It still rings true that "it won't happen in my backyard". Any public information and education campaign must be established in such a way that it becomes second nature to consider the risks and to consider the alternatives and options open to reduce those risks. Programs for public involvement must begin at the elementary level (being low cost and low participation) and encourage involvement at the next level (low cost and moderate participation - and remember, baby boomers will soon have more time on their hands) and progress to higher cost initiatives and intensified participation.

Enforcing compliance to a national mitigation strategy is not very doable. A national strategy should incorporate a national vision for hazard mitigation and risk reduction. It shouldn't impose rules and regulations but rather should provide an environment that commits people, communities and businesses to accept their role in making their communities healthier and safer. The commitment must come from being informed, from having a say and from personal dedication. It is a long term cultural modification that needs to be started. Individuals need to recognize that they must first fend for themselves, then their communities and then society as a whole.

RESPONENT: Scott Crowley

RISK MANAGEMENT AND A NATIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

Exposures to accidental loss-both actual and potential-impose costs on particular organizations and on the entire economy. These costs fall into three broad categories: (1) property, income, lives, and other things of value damaged or destroyed in accidents; (2) the deterrence effects of potential accidental losses (the net benefits that could have been gained from activities no one undertook because they were judged too "risky"); and (3) the resources devoted to managing accidental losses, resources that could have been put to alternative uses had there been no possibility of any accidental losses, nor loss exposures.

For an individual organization and for the entire economy, the third category of costs constitutes the "costs of risk management"; the reduction in either of the first two categories of costs constitutes the "benefits of risk management". For an organization as for an economy, a proper risk management program minimizes the total of all three categories of these costs. These relationships are more evident when considering separately the costs and benefits of risk management to an organization, to an entire economy, and to communities within that economy.

The Risk & Society Project, Black and White Communications Inc. A

body of principles, rules, standards or norms, Webster's Dictionary

General 165

For a Particular Organization

Organizations facing loss exposures (1) incur a "cost of risk" for both actual and potential accidental losses and (2) are deterred from potentially profitable (or otherwise beneficial) activities because these activities are considered not worth the cost of risk of undertaking them. A good risk management program will minimize the cost of risk of an organization's current activities and will enable the organization to cost-effectively undertake activities it once considered not worth the cost of risk.

Reduced Cost of Risk of Current Activities. For any organization, the cost of risk of a given asset or activity is the total of the accounting costs that the organization would not incur in the absence of exposures to accidental loss. More specifically, an organization's cost of risk associated with a particular asset or activity is the total of the following:

1. The cost of accidental losses not reimbursed by insurance or other outside sources2. Insurance premiums or payments to other outside sources of funds3. The costs of measures to prevent or reduce the size of accidental losses4. The administrative costs for risk management

Risk management aims to reduce an organization's overall cost of risk, thereby increasing the organization's profits (or, for a non-profit organization, reducing the budget it needs for a particular activity).

It is the long-term, overall cost of risk for the entire organization that good risk management strives to reduce without unduly interfering with the organization's normal activities. Safety and productivity - with as little interference as possible in the organization's activities and with a minimum of resources devoted to the actual process of managing loss exposures - are the objectives of sound risk management.

Reduced Deterrence Effects. The fear of uncertain future losses tends to dampen the enthusiasm of business executives, making them reluctant to undertake activities considered to be "risky", and depriving the organization and the entire economy of the benefits that could be achieved if these executives were willing to undertake these apparently overly hazardous activities. The net benefits of these foregone activities (the benefits they would produce minus their costs) represent a loss. Good risk management reduces the deterrence effects of the uncertainty surrounding potential future accidental losses by making these losses either less likely; less severe; or more predictable.

Many new products and manufacturing processes have become attractive only when better ways of preventing and paying for accidental losses - better risk management programs - have reduced uncertainty. Thus, firms have been reluctant to manufacture and market new explosives, drugs, or chemicals until their executives could be sure that these products could be safely manufactured and marketed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

166 Appendix E

For the Entire Economy

An entire economy also faces the cost of risk, as well as uncertainty about future losses. An economy's cost of risk consists of the wasted resources consumed by or devoted to combating accidental losses. Uncertainty throughout the economy causes a misallocation of the economy's resources (away from assets or activities that seem to be too risky) so that the economy is not as productive as it might be otherwise. As a result, average living standards are reduced.

Reduced Waste of Resources . At any given time, the economy of a particular nation possesses a given quantity of resources with which to produce goods and services to meet the needs of everyone within that economy. Whenever an accident reduces these resources, as when a fire or earthquake demolishes a factory or tears up a highway, that economy's overall productive resources are reduced. The resources consumed by the accident are a complete waste.

Improved Allocation of Productive Resources . When uncertainty is reduced for individual organizations, the allocation of productive resources for an entire economy is improved. Good risk management makes those who own or run an organization more willing to undertake formerly hazardous activities because they are better protected against the accidental losses those activities could have produced. This greater willingness makes executives, workers, and suppliers of financial capital freer to move toward seeking the greatest rewards in profits, wages, and returns on investments and to shift toward more rewarding employment. Such shifts increase overall productivity within an economy and, on balance, improve everyone's average standard of living.

For a Community

Between the risk management concerns of a single organization and those of a entire economy lie the risk management concerns of any given community. The costs and benefits of risk management for a particular community are a mixture of the costs and benefits of risk management for individual organizations and for the economy as a whole. The illustrate, a derailment has major effects on the particular organizations that it directly impacts: the railroad company, local hospitals, the municipal water authority (if there is a chemical/fuel leak), and the city. For the economy of the affected county or province, this derailment also is likely to have some consequences, perhaps only very slight ones, in lost resources and economic misallocations. Somewhere in between, this accident will have moderate effects on other organizations in the metropolitan area that are closer to the derailment but only indirectly affected by it. For example, many business firms and households may have to ration water until the normal supplies can be drawn directly from a nearby river.

Risk management is concerned with these community effects as well as with organization-specific and economy-wide effects of actual or potential accidental losses and of the measures that may be taken to prevent or finance recovery from these losses.

Conclusion

Losses often affect not only business, but the communities, and in catastrophic cases, the economy and/or nation as well. Managing a National Mitigation program, like managing any other activity, requires individuals to plan, organize, lead, and control a complete risk management program. The

plan/strategy must rest on industry's and the community's basic objectives and should foster these

General 167

goals. Organizing entails not only structuring a risk management department internally, but also developing lines of communication and authority or responsibility throughout the organization, the community, and beyond. In this way, co-operation, rather than conflict, marks the National Mitigation program.

To effectively lead the program, the Mitigation Strategy must make clear to industry's senior management, government representatives and the public overall that this mission can succeed only if they safeguard their operations from the disruptions that accidental losses are almost sure to cause. Controlling the National Mitigation program requires establishing and gaining senior management support of performance standards - stated either as objectives to be achieved or activities to be performed.

The National Mitigation Strategy should be endorsed by government, industry and the community, and understood and implemented by managers and others throughout their specific organizations. To achieve the numerous several advantages that such a policy can bring to the community, business organization, or government organization, the policy should be flexible, consistent with the objectives of the stakeholders, and effectively communicated to all those who are governed by it.

GENERAL COMMENTS


Mitigation (design, development or implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada)

Before attempting to mitigate risk, there is the need to know what the hazards are. In Canada, this means that a national mitigation strategy must start with a policy of risk communication (preceded of course, by risk analyses), similar to the Seveso directive in Europe. This measure may not be perfect, but, if enforced, it is at least a means for making hazards known to a community.

The question, then, is what can be done. Up to now, in Canada, we have tended to rely on self-regulation and mitigation, i.e. in the case of technological risks, to leave regulation and mitigation to companies. Another form of self-regulation, but broader based than this last, is mitigation by professional associations or industry associations like MIACC. Between self-regulation and government regulation, there are forms of mitigation added by some insurance companies, as mentioned previously. Finally, there are regulations coming from the various levels of government. And here, I would like to discuss whether it is better for mitigation to be centralized or decentralized, because the major problem, in such a case, is what level of authority is optimal for mitigation.

Decentralization, for example in the case of pollution by a plant, offers the following advantages :decision-making is nearer the source of the threat, meaning that decisions will be made by the people directly affected; officials at the local level can make trade-offs in the choice of expenditures to face the risk; and, people will tend to accept a decision more readily if they are informed (voluntary risk-taking).

168 Appendix E

By contrast, centralization does not necessarily take into account consequences for neighboring communities; can be costly, because of duplication by municipalities; local governments can be subject to political pressures, which are greater because these governments are closer to their electors; local representatives cannot blame a central level of government for an unpopular decision.

For these reasons, I tend to favor a centralized approach in this matter. Legislation, as in the field of public health, and codes, like building codes, etc., can all, if enforced, lead to real mitigation.

But centralization or decentralization is not the only question. There is also the fact of conflicting responsibilities among various agencies at the same level of government which can affect mitigation. For example, in the case of a nuclear disaster, if it is related to defense, then the responsibility lies with the particular agency in charge of defense. But if the same disaster is related to public health, then the responsibility is with the corresponding agency in the public health sector. So, who is responsible in the case of mitigation? The same question arises among agencies at the provincial level in Canada, Agriculture, Environment and Health for example. Needless to say, relations between the various levels of government must also be taken into account in Canada.

Enforcement is the second problem. Even with the best legislation in the world, if nothing is done to apply it, then it is worthless. This means that a national mitigation strategy for Canada absolutely must take into consideration the means to enforce it and the authority to apply them.

Here, I will not discuss those hazards related to diseases or epidemics, due to the very good health care system we have in Canada. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Comb. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Science, 9 : 127-152.

More in a book called Understanding and Managing Major Sociotechnological Risks (in French) to be published in January 1998. Quarantelli, E.L. 1988. Disaster crisis management: A summary of research findings. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 4: 373-385.

Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 6: 675-682.

Bastide, S., J.P. Moatti, J.P. Pages and F. Fagnani. 1989. Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis, 9, 2: 215-221.

Nelkin, D. and M. Pollack. 1980. Problems and procedures in the regulation of technological risk, in R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers (eds). How Safe is Safe Enough. New York, Plenum Press: 233-253.

Solomon, K.A. 1987. Comparing risk management practices at the local levels of government with those at the state and federal levels. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 15 : 265-296.

One must remember that the case is with the U.S. and not Canada.

General 169

GENERAL COMMENTS


Should Canada Establish a National Insurance Program?

No, Canada does not require a National Insurance Program. At present, the private Canadian Property and Casualty insurance industry compensates Canadians from the financial impacts of a wide array of hazards, both natural and man-made. This industry employs over 100,000 Canadians and should not be replaced. There is, however, a need for a National Mitigation Program in Canada. These are two separate issues.

What insurance is:Insurance provides financial security. It is a mechanism for spreading risk and for preventing financial disaster and preserving peace of mind.

With insurance the premiums of the money pay for the claims of the few. This is the essence of risk sharing or risk spreading process. It is a practical application of the law of averages. Another insurance fact is that the premium shall be commensurate with the risk. This is the fairness principle, which is founded in the concept that all policyholders that contribute money to a pool of funds in accordance with the probability that they may cause money to be drawn out of it.

In order to operate effectively, insurance requires 1) a relatively large population exposed to a risk,2) a relatively small share of the exposed population likely to incur a loss at any particular time, and3) random occurrence of losses. Without these three basic criteria, insurers can not underwrite therisk.

What insurance is not:The purchase of insurance is not mitigation. It does not reduce the risk to life, property and the environment from hazards. Instead of reducing risk, insurance transfers from one party risk to another.

Insurance is not necessarily designed to reduce the impact of a catastrophic event on the total system. Insurance is intended to provide a benefit to an individual policyholder, where the broad implementation of mitigation benefits both an individual and the community.It also needs to be made clear that insurance is not intended to be a maintenance contract, which pays for small losses that policyholders could readily absorb without threat to their financial security. This is part of the reason why each policy includes a deductible.

Insurance and Catastrophic Losses . /In theory, insurance is an ideal mechanism for dealing with the risks associated with catastrophic losses. Insurance has two distinct, but complementary roles, compensation following a disaster and by acting as a catalyst for encouraging adoption of loss reduction measures. A carefully designed insurance program should encourage mitigation by providing financial incentives. The current insurance system is fulfilling both of these roles, although the incentives provided by the insurance industry could be strengthen by the development of a National Mitigation Program.

170 Appendix E

National Insurance Programs in US and France

In some other nations, government and the insurance industry are working together to provide insurance for natural hazards. Two examples are France and the United States. These two nations have taken dramatically different approaches to solving a common problem.

In France, the government has mandated that all private insurance policies that provide fire coverage also provide natural hazard insurance. This includes coverage for all natural hazards, including flood. This plan is mandatory. All policyholders in France pay an identical surcharge for flood coverage regardless of their individual risk. In the event of a claim, the policyholder is paid from an industry pool. The government of France plays a very active role in hazard management. The national government audits each prefect in the country and provides the insurance industry with up-to-date hazard maps. In addition, government can require, under penalty of law, that individual communities protect themselves.

The United States government and the U.S. private insurance industry have provided flood insurance since 1964. This plan is voluntary. All other hazards are left in the domain of the private insurance industry. The government sets the appropriate insurance rate and assumes the financial risk in this arrangement. The private industry acts as a delivery tool, and provides its expertise in settling claims when they arise.

Conclusion

Canada has an insurance industry that provides financial security against almost every peril. The current insurance system is working and we do not require a second public system. However, this system could be augmented through the development of a National Mitigation Program. The one hazard not addressed in the current system is flood and insurance is not an appropriate tool for addressing this hazard. There is not a country known to the Insurance Bureau of Canada where private insurers voluntarily underwrite flood insurance. In some other nations, the government has stepped in to either underwrite this coverage or a through national mitigation and mapping program attempted to make flood insurable.

GENERAL COMMENTS

RESPONDENT: Mary Fran Myers

Insights Emerging from the "Assessment of Research and Applications for Natural Hazards" in the United States

For the past three years, staff at the Natural Hazards Center have been taking stock of knowledge about what we know and don't know about natural hazards and our programs to reduce damages from them. The sobering fact is that despite our scientific knowledge and technical know-how to understand the causes of natural hazards, where they might occur, and in most cases when they will

General 171

occur with a reasonable amount of accuracy and a fair amount of advance warning, damages from hazards are continuing to rise at a staggering rate.

Based on this review, we now believe this is the case because our hazards management programs have been too narrowly focused on simple loss reduction. They have been carried out in a closed framework that does not embrace the larger context of how society relates to its natural environment. We suggest that a change in national culture may be necessary if we are ever to overcome the devastating losses from natural disasters.

The traditional perspective on hazards management is that it is cyclical: we prepare for, respond to, recover from, and attempt to mitigate vulnerability to natural disasters. We have viewed disasters on a hazard by hazard basis, and through a profession by profession approach, and not an integrated one. We have believed that all mitigation and preparedness is good and have blamed "constraints" for our not making more headway. For example, we site things like pressure for economic development, the low salience of hazards in the public, and our decentralized political system as reasons that our mitigation programs fail.

We have come to believe that this perspective is part of the reason for increased catastrophic losses because it focuses on short-term gains, and not long-term implications. It tends to lead to singular solutions and technological fixes rather than integrated and interdisciplinary problem solving mechanisms. It is retrospective rather than future looking.

We suggest that alternative ways to view things are needed before any real progress in hazard management and loss reduction is made. Central to this view is a recognition that we cannot make the nation 100% disaster-proof; somewhere, someone, somehow will have to define acceptable risk and then be willing to take responsibility for the decision of that definition. We suggest this decision making and acceptance of responsibility be undertaken throughout the nation on a community-by-community basis.

Mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery are not separate endeavors and they should not be pursued by separate professionals. They are a long-term process and must be linked. People who work to manage natural hazards must repackage themselves and what they know from the local community's viewpoint, across adjustments and across hazards, but in context of non-hazards community goals. Our research is telling us that local stakeholder's capacity to manage their own environment, resources, and hazards must be increased, and that it is the locals who must decide what they are willing to lose in future disasters.

While the project is not quite yet complete, the major findings emerging suggest there is a need for a new paradigm of hazard reduction which we call "Sustainable Hazards Mitigation." It is one where local citizens look forward and "create" the future they will live in, rather than one that just "happens." This concept calls for the creation of empowered stakeholder networks and embraces the notion of adjusting to the environment, incorporates a global systems perspective, embodies the concept of sustainability, and derives its moral authority from local consensus. In short, the new paradigm goes beyond simply reducing losses to building sustainable local communities throughout the U.S.

172 Appendix E

Under this new paradigm, actions to reduce losses would only be taken when they are consistent with five principles of sustainability: environmental quality, quality of life, disaster resiliency, economic vitality, and inter- and intra-generational equity.

Further, under this paradigm, actions to reduce losses must be based on local stakeholder networks and consensus about the communities being designed for their great grandchildren's children. This requires that disciplinary and hazards-specific views be abandoned and that hazards experts work with locals and others who seek other worthwhile societal goals like economic development and ecosystem preservation. It requires people to think about what life might be like in 100 years, how hazards fit into that life, and how decisions made today affect how hazards will impact life in the future rather than ignoring hazards or simply tolerating them.

To get to this point of "sustainable hazards mitigation" we recommend several steps need to be taken: we need to develop regional technology transfer groups that can relate to the specific areas of the country; a national risk assessment (of physical systems, social systems and the built environment) must be conducted at a scale that is useful at the local level; training and education programs that cross disciplines and integrates knowledge must be developed; existing programs must be evaluated and adjusted (or discarded) as appropriate; and a systematic method for assessing disaster losses must be established. Further, decision support systems must be provided to stakeholders that not only estimate loss based on today's situation but that also project: (a) alternative levels of vulnerability based on future population growth and other factors, (b) losses in future disasters based on alternative mitigation decisions made today, such as different land use and building code decisions, and (c) impacts on and changes in other aspects of sustainability like environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity. The systems need to enable network decision makers to "see" the community-of-the-future consequences of every decision they make today.

Our Assessment project is, ultimately, suggesting that national policies regarding hazards must be integrated into a broader context before long-term progress in reducing losses is made. Hazards are just one aspect of the natural environment within which they occur. In the same way, human activities that increase or decrease risk to hazards are part of larger social, economic, and cultural systems. Sustainable hazards mitigation puts hazards into the wider framework of sustainable development. It calls for people to establish consensus within their communities about how they will cope with hazards, how they will use their hazard-prone lands, and how they will pay for and recover from future flood disasters. They would do this as one part of a process of working -toward the overall goal of sustainability.

■

General 173

GENERAL COMMENTS


Discussion Area: Current Mitigation PolicyArea Objective: To understand the existing policy framework and political context within

which a National Mitigation Strategy would be developed and implemented. History teaches us much about not only what has happened but how each event occurred and whether from today's vantage point the actions were appropriate or lead to failure to achieve stated objectives.

QPI: Do we clearly understand the current policy context of mitigation in Canada?

The following are a few excerpts from a recent paper on mitigation legislation that is to be published by the Natural Hazards Journal.

"Disasters are not isolated from the social structures within which they occur; rather, they are a social phenomena, the result of human-environment interaction. To achieve tangible results, well-developed partnerships directed towards the achievement of mitigation will be required. To underscore the importance of partnerships, consider the argument that mitigation activities occur, first and foremost, at the local or individual level. Movement towards partnerships is crucial, to share responsibility, minimize risk, and maximize return on the investment of limited resources. Consequently, mitigation becomes a compelling component of federal disaster policy.

Perceptions of mitigation require exploration to create a common foundation from which to address the nature, direction, and structure of mitigation policy and programs. Clarity of purpose, awareness of context, and acknowledgement of limitations and conflicts represent crucial aspects in the evolution of mitigation strategies. Through awareness, understanding, and a willingness to engage in dialogue new ways of thinking can be employed to decrease the impact of natural hazards on society and environment."

"The inability to grasp the context of events represents one of our greatest barriers to understanding the cause of natural disasters. To view all the factors contributing to a disaster, by cutting across professional and disciplinary boundaries in both time and space, is difficult. Within this essay the concept of mitigation provides a vehicle to explore a contextual approach to the reduction of losses due to natural hazards, and in so doing provide connections to the global discussion on sustainability and quality of life."

"Experience in Canada demonstrates a diversity of response capabilities and readiness within the institutional organizations responsible for emergencies. Continued focus on preparedness and response follows naturally from these established capabilities, but will show diminishing returns for future investments. The contradiction, here, is that beyond a certain level of preparedness and response capability, additional investment to further enhance response may save lives, but only after lives have been lost and property damaged in the primary impact. These underlying limitations of a response-oriented approach have drawn attention to the social character of disasters, and the potential of mitigation to realize loss reductions.

174 Appendix E

Choosing the road less travelled is not without risks, but then neither is standing still amid the currents of change. Undoubtedly the character of mitigation initiatives in Canada will differ from the evolving structure in the United States. To ignore the potential contribution of mitigation, and the added benefit of forging partnerships to share responsibilities and risk, would be imprudent in light of trends in losses, changes in the social composition of Canada, and the geographic distribution of the population.

This being said, the way forward must evolve in concert with a broad range of existing commitments and contentious jurisdictional issues. How then to proceed during a period of fiscal restraint, and with uncertainty of the benefits to be realised through mitigative actions? In response, natural disasters must be seen in their true societal context, and mitigation initiatives must be designed to reduce, not increase, overall expenditure. As with other emergency initiatives in Canada today, mitigation practices must be horizontally and vertically integrated^ and incorporate iterative design features to achieve the loss reductions promised. A process based on thoughtful, reflective input combined with a willingness to share ideas and listen to others represents the best chance of achieving an effective, long-term mitigation strategy.

Further exploration of such a direction might productively employ a three-pronged concurrent approach, encompassing: (1) the development of a knowledge base for elected officials and citizens; (2) the generation of political will across jurisdiction boundaries; and (3) the encouragement of public-private partnerships. Entwining these three approaches will strengthen the concept, engage individuals and organizations, and begin construction of a sound foundation on which to build. With leadership and commitment, a mitigative attitude can evolve throughout government agencies and private organizations, that will result in the reduction of long-term risk to human life and property. The measure of success will not only be strong evidence of loss reductions, but also inclusion of mitigation activities in the everyday life of individuals, families, communities, and corporations.

In the years ahead, mitigation strategies must evolve to complement preparedness and response, reduce deaths and human suffering, realize reductions in loss expenditures by governments, insurers, businesses, and individuals, enhance the sustainability of settlements, and improve the quality of Canadians' lives. Moreover, the inevitability of natural disasters and the broad base of societal consequences, reinforces the value of developing public-private partnerships for the implementation of mitigation strategies to benefit all Canadians."

24 Horizontal integration refers to the coordinated effort of government departments and agencies at one jurisdictional level, as well as cooperation among private companies across different industrial/commercial sectors. Vertical integration refers to communication within national hierarchical structures, generally, but not exclusively intraministerial liaison. The overall objective is to enhance information flows and facilitate broadly based decision-making in a trans-organizational setting.

General 175

GENERAL COMMENTS RESPONDENT: Hans J. Rainer A

Strategy For Mitigation of Disasters

In order to develop a strategy for disaster mitigation it seems beneficial that we put disasters in the context of hazard that society faces in everyday life. This should enhance our understanding of the essential characteristics of these hazards and thereby facilitate the search for ways of mitigating them.

Hazards can be grouped into three broad categories:

Category 1: Hazards that occur in a sequence of many small events, whose cumulative effect does not vary greatly from year-to-year, nor over geographical regions. They are therefore actuarially quantifiable. Examples are: fire, death, wind storms, automobile accidents, etc.

Category 2: Hazards that are identifiable and statistically quantifiable, but have long recurrence periods and are geographically concentrated. Examples of such natural hazards are floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes; examples of person-induced hazards are: dam failures, nuclear accidents, environmental disasters.

Category 3: Hazards that are extremely rare, uncontrollable and/or unidentifiable. Examples are: meteorite impact, volcanic eruption (in Canada), acts of war, etc.

Mitigation of Category 1 hazards are now actively and routinely pursued by improvements in building and traffic regulations, health care, and education, among others. The risk is spread by a vibrant and active insurance industry.

Category 3 hazards are beyond our current means of comprehension, not to speak of solution. They could generally be classified as "acts of God". The risk is ultimately assumed by the population as a whole or the government.

Category 2 hazards are the ones this symposium is addressing. There have been attempts to apply the same approaches that were successfully employed with Category 1 hazards, but this has met with limited success. The characteristics of these hazards require different measures.

Because of the longer time span and limited geographical coverage of the hazards, two main issues need to be resolved: The risk needs to be concentrated to the affected areas with compulsory or highly persuasive measures for participation, and the risk needs to be spread over a much longer time span.

The geographical concentration can be achieved by zoning techniques as is currently done for seismic hazards, for example. It is also important that owners of property be advised of these hazards so that the economics of land values and economic returns, as well as the economics of countermeasures to the hazards can be properly addressed.

176 Appendix E

The time span issue needs to be resolved by finding ways to accumulate insurance premiums over a long period in an attempt to spread the risk over time, so that the needed funds are available and ready to be paid out after the occurrence of the relatively rare but destructive event. A type of trust fund could be envisaged. Mitigation is further achieved by improvements in design and construction techniques and by retrofitting deficient older structures, as well as broad preparedness measures to assist in the recovery phase. The federal government, with input from other levels, should actively support the development of criteria, risk assessment, improved techniques for reducing the consequences of the hazard, etc.; this is a relatively low-cost activity with a high payback or benefit-to-cost ratio. The criteria themselves should be developed by professionals in association with code writing bodies. The provincial and local governments should assist in implementing these criteria.

An important role is also to be played by the insurance system. Besides developing a method for spreading the risk over a much longer time frame, encouragement needs to be given for risk reduction by a graduated system of premiums. Facilities that conform to higher standards of resistance can be afforded lower premiums. This would encourage retrofitting and the goal of better performance in case of a major event. The government would thus not need to take a direct role in subsidizing retrofitting nor, eventually, in coming to the rescue of affected building owners and occupants in a major way.

GENERAL COMMENTS RESPONDENT: Blaine Rapp

Participation and Awareness

The need for a national mitigation strategy/vision is understated. Everyone realizes that we are putting our citizens at risk when we build in or around or on high risk lands . But we do nothing, or very little to mitigate the risks. To develop a strategy is in everyone's interest. But it must be realistic to implement and it must be cost effective.

The most important part of developing a strategy is ensuring that you have full participation. Without getting the stakeholders involved you set yourself up to fail. Of course with full participation your process will take more time to develop and implement. Delays will occur. People will lose faith in the strategy if it takes to long. But if you are not willing to take this invaluable time your process will die. This problem has been with us for centuries and we all must realize that it will take time to solve. We must be willing to take small steps first and celebrate those small achievements along the way to reaching our goal.

There have been many small steps in the past; this symposium is another one of those small step that will get us closer to our goal!

• It will be difficult• It will be a long process

General 177

• It will be costly• It will be a hard sell

The last " bullet"; a hard sell leads to the next aspect that is important and that is Awareness. We can only make good choices if we have the right information. We must educate ourselves about the risks involved and be prepared to share our thoughts. We must be prepared to educate our citizens and make them aware of the risks that are around us.

One of the key components of this strategy must include an awareness/education program that everyone can comprehend. Without it we will go nowhere.

It must reach to the grass roots level. It must reach the land owner who may want to build on a high risk parcel of land.

It must include options and costs of mitigation.

It must present a clear vision of where we want to be and how to get there.

It is my hope that this symposium will develop practical solutions to mitigation.

Through full participation and education this small step, and the steps to come, will get us to where we want to be.

GENERAL COMMENTS RESPONDENT: Alan Ruffman

Specific Mitigation Issues of Specific Interest — Historical

Studies

I was struck by the fact that the national magazine Canadian Geographic seemingly forgot hurricanes as a coastal hazard for Eastern Canada on their July-August 1996 "Natural Hazards of Canada" map included as an insert. I had heard of the map being prepared, had a person's name and address, and had twice written to this person on the committee preparing the map. I never got a reply. As an exercise, I then wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources seeking information and input, and by then the reply was a free copy of the map.

On inquiry I established that the committee preparing the map on behalf of the government of Canada was essentially a Central Canadian Committee. Thus Hurricane Hazel that affected Toronto in 1954 was on the map, but none of the East Coast tropical cyclones were. Thus the tornados that struck Edmonton and Corilla and the related historical events in these two higher-risk areas were on the map.

Tornados have killed in the order of 150 persons in Canada; no one tornado has killed more than 30 or 40 persons. Tornados clearly do immense damage to property over a very narrow short event-path.

On the other hand, hurricanes on at least three known occasions have killed ten times the number of persons as any one tornado. Hurricanes may have caused as many as 600 and 4,000 deaths on two occasions in 1873 and 1775 respectively. Hurricanes occur over wide areas of coastline and the large

178 Appendix E

storm waves combined with a large storm surge can do immense damage to shorelines. Indeed, now that excellent satellite and radio warning systems are available, losses of life and property (vessels) seldom occur at sea but, rather, the losses are along the shoreline as society has progressively populated and developed (overdeveloped) the coastline for recreational purposes. Hurricanes have killed forty times more Canadians than have tornados.

So why did the government committee compiling the Natural Hazards Map of Canada forget, or ignore, tropical cyclones? Well, one reason is that we never had a David Ludlum who wrote Early American Hurricanes in 1963 (published by The American Meteorological Society); David Phillips, a climatologist in the Atmospheric Environment Branch, has given some prominence to hurricanes on his Canadian Weather Trivia Calendar, but no Canadian has written a treatise on Canadian hurricanes — nor one on Canadian storms for that matter. No comprehensive compilations have been done.

Thus it was easy for the Central Canadian committee to not realise, or to not remember, the hazard from hurricanes. In 1996 as they completed their work, no hurricane had touched Nova Scotia or New Brunswick as a hurricane for 25 years. Hurricane history for Newfoundland only began in 1949 even though "the August Gale" has been known and feared for years. Indeed, it could be argued that the last truly destructive hurricane that Atlantic Canada had experienced was over 100 years ago in 1873 when about 600 died and 1,170 vessels sank or were driven aground on the high storm surge. And this hurricane track is quite misplotted on the U.S. maps and is shown missing Nova Scotia entirely and passing east of Newfoundland! Canada does not maintain any hurricane track maps of our own and has not systematically mapped the historic hurricanes to determine their tracks, speeds, or category (strength) — or had not in 1996; the 1869 Saxby Gale that caused a large (record?) storm surge in the upper parts of the Bay of Fundy is now under study and material will be available in early 1998.

There are no sequences of satellite photos of historical storms and hurricanes to assist in their analysis. Often these are very scattered observations from shore stations. The primary database is in the archives in newspapers, lightkeepers' reports, diaries, military journals, missionary journals, Hudson Bay post logs, or vessel logs from the British Admiralty. It takes time to accumulate the primary data and to map it. However, until that is done, the storm climatology of Canada, or eastern Canada, will not be available. Indeed, there is a danger that, if just the large storms are assessed, the storm climatology will be biased towards these large events.

Another such event quite undocumented in Eastern Canada, or in general in the northeast U.S., is "The Year Without a Summer" in 1816. A reasonable newspaper database exists from Newfoundland to New England with a few posts on the Labrador coast and in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. This cold and often frosty summer was caused by an eruption of the Tambora Volcano in the Indonesian Arc.

Historic seismicity of Eastern Canada is reasonably in hand but there are some holes in the systematic work. The systematic work in Nova Scotia has-not covered from 1868 to about 1950 when the more sensitive seismometers went on in Halifax and elsewhere, there are some gaps in the New Brunswick work, the Eastern Quebec work is not published, most of the work in Newfoundland was not systematic before the 1904 commencement of the Western Star in Corner Brook, Maine has not been cornered to our needs, and the 1755 offshore Gulf of Maine event has not been fully documented.

General 179

Why study earthquakes on the east coast at all? — certainly the hazard is not at all that of the Lower Mainland. For three reasons: a) The November 18, 1929 offshore event was a magnitude 7.2 event and caused a tsunami that killed 27 persons, which is Canada's most tragic earthquake to date; b) The Passamaquoddy Bay area is an earthquake zone of some note straddling the U.S.-Canada border. The Lepreau nuclear station was designed for a maximum 6.0 magnitude event based on the then-available historical work showing a 5.0-sized event was the largest known. Now a 5.9 event has been relocated to Passamaquoddy Bay from 1869; and c) The November 18, 1755 Gulf of Maine event is of an unknown location and size. Other data in southwest Nova Scotia point toward an offshore seismic source zone and the hazard from this zone, if real, is quite unknown.

Historic weather and seismicity studies deserve some concentrated attention in Eastern (and parts of Northern) Canada to ensure that we have the best data for hazard assessment.

GENERAL COMMENTS

RESPONDENT: John Salter Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian Policy

Developments in Australia

Change is the most significant constant. In response to pressures for change, the disaster management community in Australia is re-inventing itself to deliver services which will better meet the needs of communities. Some of the key shifts in service provision are summarized in Table 1 below. These shifts involve migration beyond 'responding to events' and embrace the broader set of issues associated with 'risk and its management'. This issue set involves vulnerability, not just hazard; partnerships, not merely single agency "silos of excellence"; and community participation in decision making, not just consideration of the community (as a target audience) for a position arrived at in isolation. These shifts are fundamental in nature, involving paradigm shifts which will impact the structure and culture of organisations.

FROM TOHazards => VulnerabilityReactive => ProactiveSingle agencies => PartnershipsScience driven => Multi - disciplinary approachResponse management => Risk managementPlanning for communities => Planning with communitiesCommunicating to communities => Communicating with communities

Table 1. Shifts in disaster management service provision

180 Appendix E

Figure 1: Risk Management Framework

What is Risk Management?

Australia then, like the United States of America and Canada, is changing its approach to disaster management; switching from an emphasis on response and recovery activities for specific events to an emphasis on a range of measures to manage risks to communities and the environment. Tofacilitate this change of focus, the disaster management community has endorsed the application of risk management.

EstablishContext

& Structures

Communicate,Monitor &

ReviewEvaluation

Criteria

General 181

The approach requires clear recognition of distinctions between hazard and risk:• Hazard , as "something" with the potential to produce harm.• Risk, as a concept used to give meaning to "things, forces or circumstances" that pose a danger.Descriptions of risk are typically stated in terms of likelihood of loss (from a hazard ).

Risk management (in Australia) is not merely a tool for analysis / assessment. It is a framework for the systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating and monitoring risk (AS/NZS 4360: 1995).

THE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

The framework, (represented in Figure 1 above) is derived from the Australia / New Zealand Risk Management Standard (1995), and is being adopted by many stakeholders within the disaster management community.

"Mitigation" (i.e. sustained action to reduce the risk from hazards) is a significant element of disaster management which can, and should, be integrated into the risk management framework. If mitigation is not integrated into a systematic risk management process it may not "have legs" (i.e., the capability to go anywhere); it may well become isolated and marginalized - an obscure term, shrouded in rhetoric, searching for a marketing approach.

Conclusions

Successful problem structuring is a crucial first step in developing successful solutions. The management priority is how best to reduce community exposure to major risks. Considerations related to hazards and strategies of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery are necessary elements of disaster management; however they are not sufficient. A comprehensive taxonomy of disaster management strategies is necessary.

We have adopted, and are grappling with, the implications of the internationally promulgated construct that R / H & V (where R = Risk; H = Hazard; and V = Vulnerability). Indeed, the only reason for disaster managers to analyze hazards and assess vulnerability is to enhance their capability to manage risk.

Risk management, focused on vulnerability, provides a flexible and holistic framework to better advise disaster management. Analyses focused on vulnerability will by identifying processes that bring about risk, highlight management options which address underpinning social features, structures or processes. In sum, in an era of increasing accountability, Risk Management provides a framework which, by focusing on managing community exposure to major risks, will facilitate the identification and implementation of intervention options which address the socially significant problems.

I have come to this section with the clear rider that one country's "flavor of the month" may not suit another; and indeed, "foreign flavors" need to have various filters applied as a matter of due consideration (in the tasting).

182 Appendix E

In sum, three fundamental principles stand out from Australia's lessons on mitigation:

1. The need to nest mitigation within risk management;

2. The need for clear and committed, "top down" policy, coordination and support; and

3. The need to implement "bottom up" at community level using enabling processes.

GENERAL COMMENTS

RESPONDENT: Peter Walton

Each year the various levels of Canadian government spend millions of dollars to formulate new public policies, legislation, regulations.

An effective national mitigation strategy must include a well planned media relations program aimed at the public, emergency preparedness associations, the mitigation industry, NGOs and government agencies to explain, involve and cement support for the strategy.

This proactive media relations program would encourage public participation, embrace public awareness and anticipate major challenges by including:

Media Relations Policy - Development, implementation and distribution of a realistic media response policy to be produced and distributed to key media, associations, industry experts, NGOs and government agencies.

Media Training - Do's & Don'ts of dealing with media, how the media works, what is news, how to handle initial media inquiries, how to manage a media interview.

Media Spokesperson - A trained, informed, accessible and articulate spokesperson who is honest, open, accurate, knowledgeable and would have the authority to speak for the mitigation strategy.

Media Materials - News releases, background information sheets, fact sheets, photos and video news releases (VNRs) produced by media relations specialists for distribution to media.

. /Media Contact Database - Up-to-date media contact list of key media outlets, reporters, editors, producers, news directors, commentators and columnists.

General

183

Media Relations Specialists - Consultants who would write, edit, distribute media materials, establish and maintain contact with media outlets and representatives, compile media contact database, handle media inquiries, produce photography, video news releases, background information, arrange and monitor media interviews.

Media Relations Evaluation - develop a realistic evaluation system that gauges the impact of media coverage and media relations on the acceptance of a mitigation strategy.

APPENDIX F

FINDINGS FROM THE MITIGATION SYMPOSIUM WORKING SESSIONS

*

Session la: Building Safer Communities - Sustainability Issues

187

Introduction

This section is a consolidation of the minutes taken by the recorders during each of the Focus Group sessions.

They are presented here for reference purposes and provide some

strong ideas for immediate action by industry, communities, provincial, regional, territorial and local governments.

190 Appendix F

• thought of hazard limited to region where a disaster occurred - hard sell to general Canadian population;

• sense of urgency lacking even when disaster occurs regularly (forest fires);• hazard mapping situation in Canada in Canada is not good - limited to areas where

disasters happen (Red River Valley, etc.);• HBC planning department takes hazard maps into serious consideration - public don't;• Australia has national hazard maps - educate through schools;• "recycle program" model - kids up to parents - works well;• HBC needs community mitigation as part of their business continuing post-disaster -

businesses therefore are interested in mitigation at the community level;• what about partnerships in the media?• government key to educate through school kids - even mitigation can be taught;• NGOs - partnership with weather channel to educate;• industry, commerce required as partners;• Red Cross seen as less invasive than the government;• insurance industry seen by public as a primary resource to assist them - second to

government;• don't scare, tell me repeatedly, don't use word "mitigation" - sounds too much like

litigation;• perception of insurance industry as "bad guy" sometimes;• information versus education - innovative approaches needed;• multi-levels of education needed -junior levels to high school where students take on

study projects that teach them and feed back giving the government information thatcan be difficult to gather (new program, Feds pushing it);

• start by selling 'dealing with risk' rather than mitigation;• focus on risk not the hazards;• what role do municipalities ply in research, education?• risk assessment required, but most people everyday are in denial about it being real;• Toronto lacking in general knowledge about what to do in emergency at public level;• if process tops at developing plan, limited use;• plans exist in relative isolation (between city, industry, insurance company, etc.)• need multi-stakeholder involvement but tendency to resist integration because of not

wanting to look bad;• process of the plan more important than the plan itself;• paternalistic planning not appreciated;• risk assessment essential - we focus on a local hazard (Vancouver, earthquakes, etc.)

and ignore other risks;• culture of plans up to now - focus on recovery, contingency;• Australia's State of Victoria mandated requirement that mitigation be part of

emergency plan - non-compliance = you don't get assistance from federal matching

funds (no bail-out) - this means major push has occurred to involve lowest levels politically;

• France similar to Australian model;

Session la: Building Safer Communities - Sustainability Issues 191

• maybe "National Emergency Management Strategy" a better term - preparedness,response, recovery, mitigation - rolled together - a complete flow from mitigation tofollow through makes sense;

• what can we do now? Context of safer community-short term;• education;• is data available to "sell" it at the top?• Australia used analysis of two places with mitigation and without mitigation and cost-

benefit showed best mitigation (clearly);• Saguenay vs. Winnipeg is our example;• information from highly esteemed neutral quarter seems best;• not necessarily insurers because they may be seen as biased;• discussion on Federal ability to enforce compliance - jurisdictional issue;• provinces enforce via incentives (tax, awards);• step one - agree to back national policy;• 'National' policy rather than 'Federal' policy;• consensus among stakeholders represented here is powerful and can apply

pressure/motivation to government.

Summary• National policy is needed• National policy should be at the "steer not row" level• Mitigation included in broad context• Strategy needs to be articulated as a "one liner" followed by logistical details• USA FEMA workshop forum worked well• Risk and perception needs to be addressed• Assessment of risk needs to be provided• Responsibility can be enforced/encouraged through codes, compliance/enforcement• Educational roles - government, partnered with NGO, schools• A risk management approach is a good model to use for mitigation

Where to go?• Presentation of data by multi-stakeholder groups seen to be neutral• "Sell" concept of risk management approach• Feds facilitate with message "it is good for economy"• National process, not federal edict;• Feds first layer;• Feds, as steering process, make facilitation (not jumping in "to fix");• Policy first, amend approach• Holistic approach

192 Appendix F

Focus Group 2

• the definition of sustainability - what is it? Agreed to use standard definition;• definition of "healthy community" - broader definition than the one given by the

Ministry of Health;• most of Vancouver's population has not experienced an earthquake - for this reason,

the populace might be less prepared than other communities;• do not focus on micro-level - try to focus on the macro level in terms of planning and

implementing mitigation;• big picture issues and try to exemplify the issues at the local level;• how are we going to make mitigation work from the top?• Guidelines should promote and enhance education at the grassroots level in order to

get people to acknowledge the need for mitigation;• will government be willing to spend large amounts of money on mitigation?• If the public perceive the need, they will put pressure on politicians - there is need to

educate the public;• is there a role for government to share leadership in the area of mitigation?• In the USA, the federal government prohibits financing for new housing in flood

prone areas unless the house is elevated to meet Federal standards. Thus, fewerpeople face a disaster because they have been prepared. No Federal transportationfunds are given or directed to flood prone areas unless proper mitigation techniquesare used;

• the mere fact that people are provided with information is not necessarily going tochange their behaviour - so leadership is necessary - there is need for shifting culture -how do you shift culture;

• is this social behaviour change?• People have stopped smoking cigarettes - that is one example of a shift in culture -

public awareness is definitely necessary;• there are always trade-offs - what is the level of acceptable risk?• It's a decision that has to be made at the local level;• how do you do that (make decision) if there are different stakeholders with different

perspectives but which are under the authority of one department?• Set national standards;• there are different types of floods - you run the risk of having high standards in some

communities and lower standards in others;• local communities tend to be risk averse .and once the community knows there is a

risk, a developer would have a tough time developing in the area - how do you dealwith conflicting interests (e.g., local residents and developers);

• politics stands in the way of mitigation;• you should set up a national policy and enforce it - lack of enforcement of building

code in several Canadian communities;


193

• what role can the private sector play in leadership - e.g., banks with mortgages?• The focus tends to be on the here and now rather than taking along-term perspective -

banks sometimes will not give mortgages for houses in disaster prone areas; trailersend up getting set up in the areas after finance/loans are not forthcoming;

• no bank wants to be hard nosed in being the first to start off a scheme;• there are lots of different communities and interest groups;• there is going to be conflicting interests;• there is need to give communities several options;• if they cannot do something, then maybe there might be compromises;• people is one side of the country cannot be expected to identify with the interests of

people in a different part of the country;• find the commonalties;• the hazards in Atlantic Canada are similar to the hazards of Pacific Canada;• change sense of competition into mutuality;• do not prescribe what each community needs -provide a framework/models for

communities to look at;• provide them with possibilities;• find the way forward and change legislation;• fixed codes from the federal government would not work;• policy must come from within the community;• a community must have a plan for mitigation in order for the federal government to

assist them in the event a disaster occurs;• communities always say they cannot afford mitigation measures;• but such communities cannot afford the recovery after a disaster;• how do you reduce the risk in such communities?• Why was Richmond (BC) built in the first place?• It's economic value which dictated that the area be developed - how can we make

such communities safer?• There will not be a lot of money from the federal government - but there has to be a

disaster relief funds from the federal government;• what if one property owner has disaster insurance but the neighbour does not - in a

flood then what happens?• In terms of a national strategy for disaster management, communities must be told

that they should have a plan or prepare for a disaster otherwise - they will not receiveassistance should a disaster occur;

• federal governments cannot work with individuals - local government must be intouch with the citizens;

• mitigation must be tied into disaster relief funds;• tie the mitigation funds with the level of mitigation, but this could backfire;• leadership can come from several areas - NGOs can also play a role - leadership at all

levels of the community;

• if the public gets outraged they will force politicians to take action;

194 Appendix F

it has to be informed outrage, otherwise the point might be missed - riskcommunication is part of public education;building code is not an issue because it does not take into consideration the builtinfrastructure that exists - what exists is still at risk - there is need to take downbuildings to bring them up to modern building code;important to differentiate between new and old development - because they requiredifferent mitigation schemes - older buildings might require retrofitting;what about heritage buildings? Maybe people could use old structures during the dayand the buildings could be empty at night? But no one knows when the disasteroccurs?Land use, zoning is an important factor - as land becomes more built up thendevelopments are going to occur in the risk areas;will mitigation be driven upwards or downwards - land use is a provincial issue;economic issues of a community - how does that fit into mitigation plans;building codes must have an environmental component - environment is thrown outwhen a major disaster occurs;any mitigation plan has to ensure environmental integrity.

Summary

• Leadership - government and industry and NGOs (community);• Risk communication - public awareness, attitude, cultural change;• Regulation/codes/enforcement - old and new structures, "cultural" capital (heritage

buildings);• Land use - long term potential of risk; enforcement in high risk areas; forced

compliance by upper levels of government;• Environmental impacts - these issues must be considered prior to the disaster;• Coordination - common threads of communities identified and acceptable risk levels

determined;• Roles of all constituents.

Focus Group 3

• mitigation is most effective at the local level - must have "buy in"• incentives at national level - feeds into community (key at local level -knowing their

risk and population refuses to live in the area);• federal government can act as a catalyst;• must build a culture - long term strategy required;• people must perceive that something must be done;


• post disaster payments must be tied to mitigation;• must do research on hazard/risk in community and develop awareness - must have

"affordable" solutions;• need to look at all hazards and multi-hazards -natural and technological (but

excluding diseases?) - cannot uncouple natural and technological;• when mitigation for natural hazards, you are mitigating generally for technological

(this excludes technological disasters associated with natural disasters);• on the individual/community level, mitigation is competing with other "needs";• disasters are "sudden" events to more than one person;• best way to be "safe" is to know - for a safer community;• natural hazards (through mitigation) is way down on people's list;• near memory (of recent events) - including technological hazards may rise awareness

of mitigation and need;• too much inclusion (i.e,. all hazards approach) will not allow us to go forward;• technological facilities must be excluded (mitigated) from natural hazard areas;• framework which allows us to make decisions;• FEMA - range of hazards defined;• sustainability - part of the risk assessment ("balanced" risk assessment);• want to include safety and security in the definition of risk assessment - all agreed

that sustainability should be included;• in USA have identified the risks in communities;• need a total risk assessment for each community;• must get mitigation into EPC mandate;• must focus all federal resources;• we must consolidate all the hazards into program;• huge hole in the knowledge of vulnerability;• must be multi-disciplinary;• MIACC - 1400 sites in 500 communities (hazardous substances);• a lot can be done locally - floods may be broader - protecting city;• distorting effect of federal, provincial policies on local community - the programs are

focused and may not be relevant to the community;• must be done in view of scarce resources;• lot of things (resources available) now under way;• clarification of roles;• perception - beliefs of people (personal evaluation) must be understood as part of the

process;'• this is a long term project;• cost effective;• disasters affect large numbers in a community;• knowledge of risk - public must be made aware;• unless disaster occurred, public don't put it at the top of the list;

196 Appendix F

• all hazard approach? Too large will loose strategy; health may not fit well in strategy;FEMA focused on all hazard risk - but only natural hazards;

• should be broad;• local government must implement - higher levels provide funds;• integrated at local level - at federal level may be more limited in terms of what should

happen - should have policy which overlaps;• concept of sustainability - must be developed so society can sustain itself; from safety

and security point of view; belongs in mitigation strategy; balanced risk assessmentrequired;

• must be consolidation of assessment by organization;• must provide tools to assist with assessments;• risk tolerance - various within the public (e.g., car crashes versus plane crashes);• role is knowing vulnerabilities - too much work on hazards, not enough on

vulnerabilities;• difficult to determine who is responsible for assessment and how it might be done;• comprehensive risk assessment: federal government develops; local government to

implement via tools;• some risk mitigation can be done by individuals and some by higher levels.

Summary

Strategies:• All hazards• cost effective• Doable• Partnership• Public perception: knowledge and belief

Hazard/Risk/Vulnerability• Focus has been on hazard assessment - more needs to be done on risk assessment• Need to identify vulnerabilities• Federal/provincial: do more; provide tools; bring information together;• Local -> action;

All Hazards Approach:• Natural• Human-made: technological, hazardous goods;• Health


• an "umbrella-type" model was used to describe the relationship of the various roles:• umbrella rim: Federal/Provincial -> strategy/incentives• umbrella stem: Local -> buy-in, implementation, most effective• umbrella handle: roles need to be clearly defined

Focus Group 4

• agreement that there is a need for the establishment of merit for a national mitigationstrategy and that the merit must be tangible

• business continuity issues aren't taken seriously because most of the private sectordoesn't engage in it

• government funded projects are hard to justify re: funding Mitigation is not at the topof the list - emergency planning and mitigation is not on the agenda

• needs to be a payoff- media perspective: the question is "Am I safe?" - mitigationhas to "mean" something in people's lives

• community and the public: should they be involved in the process?• Deal with each issue by merit not "sellability". Economic case for mitigation is not

useful in every case for extensive retrofitting• need to make people aware of risk• this is the way to change the culture• awareness is the key for getting mitigation strategies absorbed into the development

industry• integration is also important in mitigation• awareness, tools and funding together is the needed package• hard to sell the future• media is helpful e.g., image, however it trivializes disaster• domino effect is prevalent - which domino has to be first? - that is to say which public

or private organization is going to really initiate a national mitigation strategy - otherorganizations will follow

• new demographic - communication problems because of increase in ethnic diversity• need people who can talk to people• understand different cultures• land use - very difficult because of political structure• local problem because of political parties financing• land use - other levels of government have some responsibility• national insurance program - flood insurance policy in USA is a good model• sustainability - BC has a good model• building code in BC is designed to prevent collapse not damage• retro-fit "bring the building up to code" - are funds available

198 Appendix F

get best buck for what we can do nowawareness - should it be broad based?Maybe the concept is broad-based but the implementation is applied in bits and pieceswe need a champion(s) to take the lead in mitigation strategizationneed to integrate knowledge into the awareness

What can we do now?

• different level of guidelines (i.e., national, provincial, regional, local)• Canadian bureaucratic model is cooperative - not heavy handed so legislation is not

desirable• payback cost - banks need to work with insurance companies• guidelines provide context for different provincial/local strategies• establishment of guidelines would be a recognition of the value of mitigation as an

activity• concepts are easy, action is difficult• action: Fast response in an event a research team is placed on site to study the event

in motion• guidelines are a statement of intent• need to be holistic in nature because there are too many levels of governance involved• design communities in holistic manner• support for the notion of sustainability• should the persuasive approach be used to build a national mitigation strategy?• who should be the champion for working on guidelines or legislation?

How?

• Need phased in approach• Starting with guidelines and moving toward legislation• Modify existing legislation instead of creating new legislation• Feds work with "arrangements" not legislation in disaster situations• Some kind of organization made up of diverse interests (government is too slow)• Public safety is a provincial strategy• National guidelines, regional strategies, local implementation• Sustainability, not sustainable development


199

Summary

Issues:

• Perception of merit• Awareness• We know what to do - how to do it? How to pay for it?• Concept of domino effect• Need of champion• National Guidelines but Regional Strategies and Local Implementation

*

200 Appendix F

Session 1b: Building Safer Communities - Insurance Issues

Focus Group 1

• insurance is key to provide incentives/disincentives (e.g., wind insurance in Floridadue to Hurricane Andrew);

• insurance replaces government enforcement;• insurance incentive towards enforcement;• insurance has profit interest;• insurance companies can be forced into continuing writing and therefore create

necessary incentives;• incentive may exist but insurance coverage can be a disincentive to mitigation:• government involvement in pushing insurance companies to create necessary

incentives;• FEMA provides federally backed flood insurance to individuals living in

communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (those that areenforcing floodplain management). For those not covered by insurance in a disastersituation, loans are available from the Small Business Administration;

• disincentives exist through "topping up" (over coverage) in buy-outs;• mandatory insurance may be necessary;• Canada does poor job of incentives with insurance structures;• mandated coverage spreads risk (public or private insurance) - e.g., through refused

mortgage if no coverage;• problem with available data for what risk is - what do you cover with insurance;• insurance companies quietly withdrawing coverage after repeated claims from

flooding (in Canada);• federal insurance program moderately successful (4 million policy holders out of

expected 11 million);• in Grand Forks, people didn't buy insurance (only 10%) even when they knew the

flood was coming;• reluctance to pay extra premium for single risk;• incentives - reduced premium for taking action to reduce risk;• do people avoid insurance purchase due to availability of government buy-out?• not always - government takes longer to pay, less money than insurers;• insurance also incentive for taking steps to reduce risk;• insurance incentives or new insurance regulations altogether;• perception of insurance companies not good - problematic?• is auto insurance an example?

Session lb: Building Safer Communities - Insurance Issues 201

no-fault auto insurance a useful model? Quick payout, less confrontation betweeninsurer and policy holders;federal back-up of insurers (the companies) has not gone through yet because notenough mitigation in the policy writing;what about insurance for companies? What is government's role in enforcingcompanies to get insurance coverage and following through on compliance withregulations?insurance deals with monetarily-valued commodities - does not cover everythingaffected in disasters;insurance spreads cost of disaster and can be used to decrease risk;used as a lever to decrease risk in the community;too much emphasis can be put on financial matters through over-focus on insurance;insurers interested in mitigation in areas that affect them;they had more coverage in Saguenay through insurance of businesses as opposed toRed River Flood - therefore, more interested in mitigation in Quebec than inManitoba;emphasis on all-hazards coverage to spread the costs;federal government into re-insurance (over insurance) - insurance for insurancecompanies;multi-national insurance companies spread insurance across borders;a federal policy would share costs across Canada but should be able to enforcemitigation policy to prevent abuses by those in "subsidized" areas;smoking policies may be a good example;those living in high risk areas often contribute greatly to national economy (RedRiver, Lower Mainland);insurers may get interested in spreading information about what's being done in mitigationif it was in everyone's interest to be concerned bout every place (national policy);a national program has "teeth";in USA, Northridge quake cost 15 billion - therefore, many social projects werecancelled; everyone pays eventually, why not pay in mitigation!insurers need to be asked why they won't insure in a given area - what needs to bedone to get them to cover?"federally administered pool" - a disaster endowment fund;better to be privately administered;insurers want a pool that exists to be made bigger and be tax-free;checks and balances necessary;mitigation is key factor - mechanisms need to exist to penalize community or policyholder who don't practice mitigation;reward exists through decreased premiums for flood insurance because of theenforcement of floodplain management;communities may have disincentive of identifying risk because may becomeuninsurable.

202 Appendix F

Summary

• Need for mandatory insurance, associated with mitigation, because people won't buy-in otherwise;

• spreads risk;• No-fault, all hazards;• National and tied into mitigation (risk assessment crucial);• Incentives at community level, not just individuals;• Disaster endowment fund (tax consequences);• Community rating plan;• Government is involved in fire and health insurance but exposure still exists on other

hazards (landslide, quakes, etc.) that the government is not involved in.

Focus Group 2

• is there a role for the insurance industry re: mitigation?• Insurance is definitely important for mitigation and building safer communities;• is this public or private insurance?• The government should be involved in areas where it is not economically viable for

private insurance;• variable rate depending upon risk -rather than the number of complaints;• insurance and mitigation should be linked - you cannot get insurance unless your

community has mitigation plans in place;• what is a good community emergency plan?• Why the desire to have public insurance rather than private insurance? If there was

private sector insurance only, then people would not be building in disaster pronezones;

• where is the homeowner going to get the money to pay for insurance?• if people have smoke detectors and sprinklers then it is more towards risk

management;• insurance can be a negative incentive;• at a national level the focus should be on major disasters;• what is a national insurance program? Money comes from government but the

private sector is at the front - private insurance is sometimes subsidized;• insurance rates in California are so high and people are being denied insurance;• in Canada there are small localities that are prone to specific disasters;• some people will drop the premiums because government will pay;• is it possible to integrate national policy and insurance so that compensation is paid

only to those with mitigation?


what type of mitigation would make citizens want to take on a policy?Manitoba flooding has had an impact but it did not really convince individuals to takematters seriously;in France, everyone pays for the flood insurance plan;there seems to be strong sentiments against the federal government takingresponsibility for mitigation;if there is competition in the insurance industry then there might be cheaper rates forinsurance;

Summary

• Insurance can influence land use• Some people built without knowing they were building in a disaster prone area;• Insurance companies are trying to get incentives from the government;• Insurance are not using risk, they are using number of complaints to determine

premiums;• Premiums could be realistically covered if insurance companies considered risk;• After a disaster and in the next round of mitigation, do you consider the magnitude of

the disaster and build with that number in mind? Do you build to improve the level,building better?

• Stock away money for major public works after a disaster;

Insurance aspects

• No support for all hazards insurance;• Private insurance tied to community comprehensive/mitigation/emergency

management plan (proactive);• Specific hazards insurance;• Mitigation activities to encourage insurance industry to underwrite or reduce

premiums;• What incentives for people to buy insurance;• Government establish reserves to cover public infrastructure (self-insurance but in a

prepared way);

204 Appendix F

Focus Group 3

• mandatory all-hazard isn't effective;• insurance must be linked to payouts;• in New Zealand if you buy a house then you have earthquake insurance;• other hazards are put on owner;• issue is short term versus long term;• Saguenay floods is $1 billion payout: 300 million big business insured; 300

federal/provincial; 300 uninsured/poor;• must address all factors of society;• insurance gives people incentive not to mitigate -false sense of security;• we have no flood insurance in Canada;• earthquake insurance is additional to normal policy, but not offering in higher risk

areas;• must be interlinked with government, insurance, and banks;• can use insurance as an incentive for example, reductions for fire alarms, etc.;• insurance companies have a vested interest in mitigation;• insurance can be capped;• insurance must be linked with other programs;• if money aren't available for places you love - then cause people to move;• people buy in risk areas knowing some of risk, get cheaper price - maybe they

should?• There sometimes is not great choice - e.g., Red River Valley - is so large and

economically viable - what are the options?• Insurance doesn't have anything to do with mitigation - investment in, but doesn't

cause mitigation - opposite effect happens;• must be tied to the homeowner;• with insurance, some survive;• if insurance too expensive then someone may mitigate;• balance of mitigation and insurance;• insurance includes - private industry and government - does government get involved

in insurance?;• more money into mitigation then the less insurance and other programs need;• DFA - only allows for rebuilding to "old level" of existence;• insurance can't be considered in isolation;• must always look at ability; . /• many other things are possible for incentives (e.g., taxes, not just insurance);• come up with models to help people make assessments which include insurance;• communities need to look more at risk of constructing (e.g., utilities do more of this);• role of insurance and business (e.g., banks and bank loans only if mitigation taken);


• cost of insurance may become so high that you can't afford it and then mitigationbecomes the only/cheapest option;

• part of recovery capability;• insurance continuum appears as follows:• insurance is part of recovery costs - part of funding - need a balance between

mitigation and insurance -this has been done in industry, but not in public;• post disaster mitigation important as well as recovery costs - involves government

though;• what is motivation of partnerships between federal government and insurance

industry to move to mitigation?;• how can we deal with this issue? Agreed that we can't reach consensus today - how

can we reach consensus on what needs to be done?• have to look at insurance together with government payouts - can't pull government

payouts for general public;• need to look at system where responsibility lies;• look at case histories, combined fund of government and community owners, and

utilities and insurance to come up with plan;• should look at models to help evaluate insurance and mitigation balance;• context of all options - look at ability to pay;• look at larger responsibility;• no incentives for people who currently mitigate - people with their housing are not

very responsible (compared to utilities who must be accountable);• have to have a point where individuals won't be bailed out by government so they

have to do their own self-insurance and mitigation;

Summary

Insurance• Role not clear• Insurance not in isolation• Insurance may prevent mitigation (incentive not to insure or false sense of security)• Must review cases - responsibility

What Next?• Review cases;• EPC/Insurance Industry• Responsibility/Ability• Develop/evaluate models

206 Appendix F

Focus Group 4

• insurance is available in Canada• purpose of insurance is a transfer of risk, not mitigation• insurance is considered, sometimes, as a replacement for mitigation• role of insurance in mitigation:• pay money after disaster• price - lower insurance cost for good mitigation• this area is weak and needs help• insurance companies do not insure flood plane everywhere• three purposes for insurance: large population susceptible, small share hit by event,

loss random in general• tornadoes, hail, hurricanes are covered• commercial insurance covers person-induced hazards• government covers communities• risk control techniques, insurance is involved - mitigation to reduce their payouts• insurance as an incentive for mitigation• discount isn't enough for people to undertake a mitigation strategy• is due diligence needed to get coverage?• should the bank loan money to uninsured people?• manage earthquake risk (example) - shake coverage, fire coverage, shake causes fire• encourage mitigation through insurance• USA perspective: flood insurance program tied to a mitigation program. A

community must develop land-use ordinance to qualify for the program; insurance isavailable provided local communities comply with guidelines; people who haveprivate insurance get less than those relying on the public system; instances ofrepetitive loss (i.e., $30,000 house receiving $200,000 in insurance funds); after manyevents, the USA has tried to get an all hazard insurance program - if successfulprivate broker will lose interest in insuring events

• promoting mitigation strategies as a benefit• mitigation is a fixed cost for uncertain benefit• after an event, some companies (insurance) will express a wanting to get out of, say,

hurricane insurance• the government will step in and tell a company if you abandon one form of insurance,

the company will lose its ability to insure in other areas• the role insurance plays in land use decisions• property owners are willing to buy insurance given that they have undertaken

mitigation strategies• benefit for mitigation behaviour


Summary

• Purchase of insurance is NOT mitigation - it is a transfer of risk• Private insurance is not available for floods• Government is the insurer of last resort• Businesses aren't adequately covered: if they go under, jobs are lost• Provincial government will bail you out once, not twice• either situation "a" or "b" occur in an event• how do technical disasters fit in?• insurance has to work with business to develop mitigation strategy• it's easier to insure corporations engaged in hazardous material than individuals• a need for public policy to ensure that companies have insurance or undergo

mitigation strategies• insurance companies funding mitigation strategies: encourage partnerships in

developing strategies; support private sector partnerships• conditions placed on those living in hazard susceptible areas (ie., must buy insurance)• should government force people to buy insurance• national strategy should provide for effective insurance coverage

Summary

Issues:• Purchase of insurance is not mitigation - it is a transfer of risk• Private insurance does not cover floods• Private insurance can promote mitigation - community rating system• Should government be the insurer in the absence of insurance?• Insurance has been used as an instrument in public policy• Insurance effectiveness is impacted by public policy• Therefore, national mitigation strategy should also try to improve insurance coverage

208 Appendix F

Session 2: Developing Public Participaction

Focus Group 1

• mitigation is not necessarily good - depends on where it is in continuum ofintervention - balancing risk is key

• broader context than just mitigation is necessary - need tools to make decision(individually, public); and pro's and con's for decision making

• competition for our resources (of time and money) an issue (as individuals) - we canonly focus on a finite number of things vying for our attention

• information helps make decision• personal involvement necessary for mitigation• media role sways opinion• do media push mitigation or just report?• Push media - use them to get message out• media waits for disaster - not interested in Mitigation unless it's package right• public fora in USA successful for input - they then had ownership of the issues -

feedback to them kept their interest in whole process• where are arguments for mitigation - proofs that it works?• Evidence exists - case studies (handed out) - Albany Georgia flood vs. Northridge,

Coke plant not prepared vs. Beer plant prepared (coke lost millions where Anheusersaved 300 million for 30 million outlay)

• IDNDR results also show benefit• mitigation may tone down potential "disaster" to an "event" - re: mitigation strategy -

are we talking over what's been done?• how about public awareness - fire safety an example of good public awareness• MIACC formed as mitigation approach in its structure• MIACC is key stakeholders coming together - simple, cost effective strategies• public awareness is a means to an end of mitigation - it is not mitigation in and of

itself• enforcement inadequate, behaviour must be changed• mitigation as intent• circular process of public awareness and political will• level of acceptability relative - we accept 1000s of deaths in cars, but not in air

crashes• presentation of "lesson" and how it works depends on person• seatbelt issue in Canada is now totally accepted thanks to education• repeated messages may work best• USA national "fora" concept in Canada? Would it work here?

Session 2: Developing Public Participaction 209

• worked well in USA - overbooked due to popularity; individuals felt that they hadinput to national strategy; which they did have; mitigation is a big economic issue;most communities aware of some threat; strategy was to get public support formitigation strategy that was being put through congress anyway

• Canada needs federal government to see ground swell of public opinion• congress, public very aware of importance of mitigation - developers don't like it a lot• Canadians aware of cost of recovery - is public aware of $ benefits of mitigation?• In Red River, mitigation of Duff s ditch was largely overlooked by media• who, in National Mitigation Strategy should be interviewed and push media to cover

mitigation issues• political will is less if benefits of mitigation not going to be seen in that term• if mitigation seen to save $ and reduce harm, easier to sell but generally a hard sell;

communities less threatened less likely to be in favour of mitigation; insuranceindustry seriously involved in mitigation - model communities

• focus on mitigation issues - not policy re: community participation - in Australia,public not necessarily interested in national strategy but in local issues - imposedmitigation less useful than community initiative

• penetration at different levels necessary at community level - strategy must "holdwater"

• federal-provincial interface creates barrier but "certain courses" exist that allow mixof two levels of government

• over-prescriptive plans can go wrong• piecemeal in Canada so far - less of a National program• what is Mitigation going to mean in Canada? What does it mean to average citizen?

Why is CO detection so big a deal? Baby-boomers' concerns lead the way (e.g.,sustainable town-hall communities") so maybe focus on this large group will lead theway

• what is "community" - needs defining• we are all members of several communities - all can contribute to mitigation strategy -

statements of what's in mitigation strategy can alleviate some "what do they want?" -then they participate

• identify stakeholders and their interests - establish strategies in communities - needrolling into national program, but how?

• sounds good, but how to do it in timely way? Window of opportunity open now,political attention will wane though - how to strike quickly?

• resources required• provincial interest limited?• Canada-USA difference is funding in mitigation - USA improves situation, Canada

maintains status quo• USA has pre-disaster mitigation fund also - Canada may need change in law• In USA, in Presidential-declared disasters, 15% of the aggregate amount of FEMA

grants is put in a hazard mitigation grant program to reduce future losses

210 Appendix F

individual assistance - immediate needscommunity assistance - bring structures up to code, then add 15% of this total formitigation expenditurefunds available for any declared disaster; a program of any kind which includesmitigation raises awareness of publicpost-disaster fund for mitigation study requiredindustry perspective is that "public" = all stakeholders dealing with technologicalhazards (not just general public)business is concerned with mitigation, why not public? Have they abdicated togovernment? Are they ignorant of issues?public has false sense of security in light of cutbacks in services - they think they'recovered by federal involvement when they may not bepublic affected by disasters usually unaware of hazards - need to push mitigation aspart of cultureindustry is legally responsible to mitigate, public isn't and that makes a difference inbehaviours

Summary

• personal experience motivates mitigation• public awareness needs to be a part of mitigation strategy• awareness is an education issue• leaders' involvement - develop strategies, round tables - information to public, and

gather case study materials• government not aware of $ benefits of mitigation - studies needed• there are good examples of cost benefit of mitigation• identify stakeholders• different communities and definition of community• post-mortem study - look for opportunities of mitigation - what was $ cost? And look

for cost-benefits of mitigation• Mitigation as part of community culture• funding for restoration/recovery could include % for mitigation - opportunity to

increase awareness re: mitigation

Focus Group 2

• look at motivation• sell/market mitigation• people are willing to do something fun rather than onerous


innovative ways of making mitigation a positive experiencedisaster mitigation is related to community development and empowerment; the ideais mitigation (selling it) is to get the community to come up with ways of mitigation;a community gets a sense of "we die this together"; a sense of ownershipneed to know your community: demographics, ethnicity, etc.; be aware of howdifferent groups would react in a situationbe aware of different vulnerabilitiesemphasize to communities that the government will not be on the scene instantly;rather the local residents will have to assist each other during the first hours or days oruntil the government can chip incan businesses get involved the minute disaster occurs?Some people attach negative connotations to "marketing"; people have to believe thatwhat you are selling the is importantpeer pressure at the community level can play a significant role in mitigationstart working with low participation, and low cost because once you tell people itshigh cost they might not buy into mitigationspend the time, the money and do it right; people will want to see resultsgovernment shies away from partnerships with industry yet industry is veryinfluential in the communitywho are going to be stakeholders in the community who will report back to mitigationstakeholders include local business, NGOs, residentsare there key stakeholders - yes, e.g., insurance, engineers, architectsdo not identify key stakeholders only - all stakeholders should be involved; do notleave someone out; do not separate key stakeholdersa leader is not a bad idea; someone to start the ball rolling; to get people interested;municipal government has been elected to represent everyone so they might take onthe role of being a leaderin large municipalities (e.g., Toronto, Montreal) municipal leadership is not a goodidea because communities do not participate well enoughgovernment has to start approaching mitigation in a business like mannermitigation is evolutionary not revolutionaryits a long processbut can governments really look at the long range because they are elected every fewyears

Summary

• lengthy approach - long term process• importance of seminars, conferences• make public aware of why this is an issues• perception of mitigation as an issue

212 Appendix F

• partnerships with industry, NGOs and government• coordinated strategy at whatever level• use existing institutions• shorter term:

• seminars• conference of risk commonalties• marketing plan• local media to support local plan• coordination with all stakeholders• use of existing programs, agencies, etc.

• stakeholders include:• elected officials• government agencies• community players:

• NGO• industry• associations• service clubs• media• insurance• contractors/engineers

• key champions? Schools etc.

Major Issues (from slides):• motivation - hazard, risk, vulnerability, impact, analysis• perception of the risk• awareness of the risk• community development - empowerment to achieve, rewards• marketing - innovative attention; window of opportunity

• positive action• cost analysis• peer pressure• media• business approach• target audience• policy well-conceived and professional done

• government initiative - legislation/regulation• community values

Session 2: Developing Public Participation 213

Focus Group 3

• issue of non-participation: unless there is some coercion, people won't participate;but forced participation is not most effective;

• lending institutions could require insurance prior to lending or scale premiums interms of perceived risk;

• need broad participation;• possible that banks need to change their perception of risk• insurance premiums are illogical now;• lack of public (general public and businesses) understanding of vulnerability; need

education through government, insurance, banks; start awareness at grass roots orpossibly from the "middle level" down rather than from "top down";

• the USA needed a change in culture so local communities can make choices regardingrisk and community decisions; need to increase public awareness through riskassessment; need to develop tools and models to assess risk and to enable futureimpacts to be estimated; also agree it should be a grass roots approach;

• involve all stakeholders rather than just those in power;• culture shift needed - to get community to demand safer communities and pay more

(e.g., for resistant housing);• compliance - need to let communities participate in decision making process that way

they will buy into the process;• make it a "self-informed" process - people know little about risk; believe public

participation is OK to a point, but public involvement and awareness is a way toachieve this;

• value of public participation: focus on voluntary rather than coercion; educationmeans raising awareness; empowerment at grass roots to take people involved;translation of what risks are into language lay people can understand and act on;

• must look at "value" of education; are current training courses useful and beneficial?• Media powerful in society to put things in the forefront - must involve media and

public for policy to be implemented;• make mitigation "sexy" or appealing to public - get people to think of possibilities of

disaster;• must be careful re: involving the public without giving them the resources to take

action;• can't stir people up with nothing happening or when something really needs to be

done they won't do it;• media must see impacts at local level - or individual impacts (e.g., individual home

owner slow process - provide information on what applies to people);• Tsunami threat in Newfoundland is real, but historical lessons have not been learned -

buildings have been put back in vulnerable areas (who should pay?)

214 Appendix F

• "business of collective forgetfulness" - could be a way to record a hazard in the deedof a property (e.g., this property is in a floodplain ...") which would give ownersinformation so people don't forget about the hazard;

• currently homes must declare they are in floodplain - but has not seen major impactsof this in Canada;

• the notion is to try to change behaviour in the long term - sustained commitment toeducation and awareness and change - people need reason to act;

• requires continuous resources over the long term - must stress mitigation benefits -e.g., a house with seismically safe should get more money than other communitybenefits

• window of opportunity - use of development strategies and implement it at strategictimes like after a major disaster (e.g., when media attention is high);

• mention benefits of deductible which is significant potential loss (e.g., furnaces, tanksstrapped, etc.) - strategies to save individual money and also lives;

• sustained education program - issues of multiple benefits and of cost-benefit analysis- having window of opportunity to implement the strategy;

• innovative ways are needed - small scale things that people can act on - personalizeand help facilitate people through changes;

• give people tools and training opportunities - regional technology transfer groups tohelp communities design planning for disasters - bring language down to the level ofpublic - also broader issues of land use planning and decision making;

• don't limit mitigation to individual home improvement, also look at land use ofcommunity;

• you can't protect people from own stupidity? Who is mitigation aimed at? Schoolkids or planners?

• development and people who make decisions must take more responsibility (exampleof trailer park on floodplain in North Vancouver where trailers are bought by lower-income who have less choice);

• politicians have other money priorities;• we need people to lobby for mitigation on the agenda to get message to politicians

and to get money allocated for mitigation; we must be able to compromise and choosepractical and feasible solutions which can be acted on;

• we must realize that we are competing with other issues for available money;• EPC already in place so push policies through them;• EPC is facing budget cuts though that affect competing interests;• EPC in place due to government awareness of need - government may refocus the

organization for mitigation if encouraged-to do so;• no money to put National Mitigation Policy in place - EPC has low funds for

mitigation now;• encourage EPC - and other organizations in place and close to government who have

built-in ability to conduct education, awareness, etc.;


do something specific - rather than try to do "everything" - e.g., target schools andhospitals; work with each community and schools; this is a way to start and may be apart of an education program;province did try to start retrofit of schools in BC - BC Hydro and BC Tel have donesome retrofitting of own buildings, BC Transport is gradually upgrading bridges, butthere is less focus on dwellings; 50% of buildings are currently not up to buildingcode/standards;need commitment for sustained programs;people need to understand benefits;promote multiple benefits (e.g., seismic safe sells for more);strategy must provide recognition for window of opportunity;give people things that are not costly but can be done for minimum cost -facilitate/explain what can be done;small items may help me get on board, but lots of disincentives to do change;communities - risk assessment tools; regional technology transfer; give moreinformation to the public;individual mitigation measures are only part of the picture - communities must beaware of all possibilities;must focus information - determine who is target audience;need to advocate for mitigation to get on the agenda;Emergency Planners need to push mitigation - need to use others to help;mitigation may mean that emergency planners need to refocus - must keep on publicagenda;

Summary

• public need tools to achieve "how to" at various levels; how to design better buildings, howto design buildings for performance during and after earthquakes, for example;

• many tools exist but poor job of distribution at grass roots - no money or incentives -may tradeoffs between strategies;

• put strategy in place before getting public involved - need for broad national strategy;• must tie strategy to a public institution which can carry it through the long term;• look at participation as a process - must be discussed in relation to total risk

management process - rather than mitigation in isolation;• tell public how they can do things individually and how it personally affects them;• put strategy in place first with tools and marketing programs ready to go;• integration of risk management and local planning;• compromise;• institutionalize;• multiple use - land use/structure, economics;

216 Appendix F

participation - informed self-interest; empowerment; information and development;integrated with programs at all levels;cost-benefit - must be looked at; must be practical;education - awareness; motivation; sustained; cost-benefit; technology translation;media-windowincentives - individual and community level; insurance options; other?

Focus Group 4

• individuals provide evidence of the possibility of an event which galvanized others totake action;

• senior members of the community provide leadership;• how do you educate the public re: the benefits of mitigation if no enforcement

nationally - education, training, and awareness should be pursued;• education, knowledge, training, awareness are separate entity and should be

approached s a whole unit tied to each other;• BC preaches personal preparedness as a way of raising awareness;• people are reluctant to spend money on mitigation because of denial issues ("it won't

happen to me");• use "carrots" and "sticks" to ensure compliance;• how to change people's behaviour so that compliance will be easier to obtain;• enforcement becomes a problem with an existing structure, easier with a new

structure;• in the future, we may be looking at tougher building codes;• is public participation in the form of lobbying? (yes);• first the public needs to be convinced of the need to pay for mitigation strategies;• public may miss the boat - may want something that is not needed - this happens due

to lack of awareness;• community is willing to accept risk in the absence of a recent event;• the public needs to pressure the government to include mitigation on its agenda;• pubic is more enlightened these days - the challenge is the government willing to

engage in a public process?• public participation is now a requirement in planning - given new information about

an area's susceptibility to an event, how does participation work?• mitigation is too scary a word for public consumption (i.e., "mitigation/litigation" ) -

maybe use "reduction" instead; . />• can property tax be a factor? Pay less tax for good mitigation - or would this be seen

as more of a disincentive than an incentive?


• what motivates the public to get involved in mitigation? Advertising might work -politicians seen inspecting structures with better standards, local government shouldtake action on the public's behalf;

• focus on things that people can do (i.e., "drop, cover and hold" concept);• what would happen if a municipality offered inspections of buildings ("Inspection

Day");• companies do this kind of thing (BC Hydro, BC Gas);• BC Gas example - Home Team - ensures safety, pleases employees, increases

productivity;• how does this kind of model spread to other areas? People pick up good ideas;• distinguishes your company from others - seems like being socially responsible;• public participation = lobbying (two different things);• can the general public unorganized be as effective as a lobby group?• don't do a good job of exposing the real economic costs of an event;• two concepts: preparedness and mitigation;• preparedness: can't avoid an event - need to prepare for it;• mitigation: can reduce the damage suffered during an event;• public talks as a method of spreading awareness - patience is required;• public participation is needed for a national strategy;• why don't we get public participation? Need to identify all the disincentives (i.e.,

consultants expose risk, if not followed up, all parties become liable for inaction);

Summary

• review disincentives and incentives towards mitigation;• public participation;• an effective national strategy;• needs to have public support;• dual role for the public - lobbyists and individual to look after themselves;• element of national strategies that are popular should be pushed through first;• public as a lobby for effective national guidelines, regional strategies, and local

actions;• mitigation is the wrong work;• hard sell to the public doesn't work - marketing needed;• encourage employers to do mitigation for themselves;• encourage municipalities to do what is good for the public - enforcement of codes,

land use, etc.;• a little fear is healthy, but scare tactics don't work;

218 Appendix F

To examine "enhancement" we must first understand what is the present reality

Public ParticipACTION Dual Role:

1. public looking after themselves2. public as a lobby group for effective national guidelines, regional strategies and

workable local action

Lobby Role

Need: a public that is demanding - mitigation programsKey: awarenessProblem: perception of mitigation - don't scare, tell me once, tell me again & again &again

Role as Individuals

Motivation: both carrot and stick

• Municipalities have the responsibility to do what is right for individuals even ifformer are aware of it or not

• scare tactics do not work - marketing challenge• encourage employers to do what is right for individuals (partnerships like BC Gas's

Home Team)• The private sector has an interest in the level of resilience of their local communities

... and vice versa• government also have an obvious interest - collectively government also has an

obligation• National Mitigation Strategy does not equal Federal Strategy• other models: MIACC example• who contributes?• who coordinates?

Session 3: Encouraging Government & Industry Action 219

Session 3: Encouraging Government & Industry Action

Focus Group 1

• local governments are first to act;• re: role in mitigation strategy - they are key in making it work;• mitigation not all local - especially if left to their own (e.g., Duffs ditch was federal

level);• national guidelines, regional strategy, local implementation;• local as far as planning level;• local government implement strategies from higher up;• background papers noted that local government left to carry on except no funding

from higher up - in this case, they need enforcement;• local governments need to be involved in standards development;• consultative process in USA involves local government in state, national law (to do

with mitigation);• local government must take ownership - recognize risk, also enforce regulations - it's

their risk level;• big programs can make local government "serfs of federal government";• what financial assistance is available from industry? (lots, not just cash support);• contribute to codes but also pay up;• representative in groups contributing to public involvement;• industry can see hazard assessment in a different way to public - hazard "a cost of

doing business";• can be common ground due to employee's coming from community - company

concerned with community health - big companies with risk managementdepartments have less problems in disaster situations;

• do problems occur to marginal/"bad" companies? Do they leave themselves open toproblems?

• HBC retrofitting for correct sprinkler density for example - this includes leaseholds(taking responsibility to do it);

• need for risk managers to get together with "DRIE" types of organizations - HBC andothers involved in community - business partnerships;

• smaller/weaker companies and municipalities left out of recovery process? Where dothey fit into mitigation? . /

• Are there not two levels effectively due to municipalities getting cash from province?• Federal government does National building code - enforcement, use, adoption, up to

province;

220 Appendix F

• provinces apply enforcement, etc., in different ways - should Fed's look at moneygiven to provinces being relative to how much of Federal guidelines the province hasadopted?

• In USA some money direct to state, some to local government - money tied toguidelines, states negotiate on how to apply mitigation money, states represent localgovernments;

• guidelines in Canada allow much leeway in disbursement of recovery funds (e.g.,DFAA) - what about mitigation funds? Should we fine-tune programs to include %for mitigation?

• Mitigation policy in Canada cannot just be fine-tuning - needs to be a new policysince no policy currently exists;

• mitigation needs to be inside expanded context for mitigation policy;• state/federal negotiation over mitigation not always easy - discretionary amount (5%)

included that they can spend on legitimate expenditures outside FEMA guidelines;• perception - lack of money at issue - with focus on response up to now, less money

left for mitigation;• partnerships valuable;• education important to bring local government up to level of understanding where

they value mitigation;• DFAA based on provincial population - policy to establish reasonable level of

emergency management needs to account for relative economic health - not justpopulation;

• based on significant part of economy? Like importance of Port of Vancouverremaining open?

• Weighting system useful?• Based on GDP?• Business risk and community risk need to be brought together;• recognize many one industry towns in Canada;• in these (one industry towns) industry must get involved;• in these towns, do authorities have the power or do politicians give in to powerful

companies?• Government policy coercive or non-coercive?• Guidelines - not followed vs. Regulations - can be coercive;• MIACC uses self-regulation;• can be wishy-washy when it comes to levels of hazards - industry can provide input

but need guidelines;• consensus on reasonableness of guidelines problematic - information distilled to

something understandable necessary - if not well-informed, then disenfranchised fromprocess;

• policy, guidelines, standards, awareness, implementation all on path to overall policy;• new regulations too quick sometimes;• check enforcement rather than jump to regulating after disaster - was it a problem?

Session 3: Encouraging Government & Industry Action

221

this is what province does - check enforcement; national policy gets other players onside;

Summary

Role of Local Government

• risk is a local issue• local government needs to implement mitigation• needs to be involved in any mitigation strategy

Industry

• industry considers risk as it impacts business

• industry & communities need to share information and enhance partnerships

Provincial/Federal

• development of guidelines, awareness, education• guidelines not always followed• but if standards, they need to be reasonable

Focus Group 2

• role of local government - they are the implemented because they know thecommunities; local governments are responsible for land use so they are key inmitigation;

• pre-disaster - a consistent approach to mitigation applied throughout the boardincluding on Indian Reserves;

• what financial assistance should government provide? Community could apply forpartial financing of a program - JEPP is a good concept - against what criteria do youallocate the money - priority list of issues?

• Recommendation - 2 programs - a federally sponsored program and another financedat the provincial level - accountability becomes important;

• post disaster - funds might be needed for activities such as evacuation;• why would you have funds stashed up for a disaster when the money could be used

for mitigation?

• Business plays a role in mitigation and response to disasters;• government could extend tax incentives to business;

222 Appendix F

in disaster recovery business rushes in with financial assistance but they are notforthcoming when invited to participate in mitigation;what is the most effective way to get government involved? .• ■Business has to have a strategy that it can bring to a community;government policy takes a long time to implement - do NGOs have a stake in the kindof policy that government formulates?Peer pressure can force the government to formulate a mitigation policy - the problemis that there is no pressure in mitigation - in disaster recovery there is a beginning anda definite end, but there is no end with mitigation;sell mitigation as a series of projects that are tied together - fight the battles that youcan win first; what steps can we take to get both industry and government to beinvolved? Government and industry should be aware that they are not in competitionrather that they are aiming for the same goal;

Summary

• enhance government role• local government runs the program• consistent approach• local government must license with other agencies• disbursement of donations during or pre-disaster stage• sharing of equipment after a disaster (resources)• agencies public and private to advocate policy• identify common risks• develop partnership

Role of Local Government:• must be involved• buy-in to the initiative• land use and codes and regulations• hazard, risk, vulnerability impact analysis• consistent approach

Financial Assistance• pre-disaster - JEPP type (federal & provincial); tax incentives• post disaster - % of DFAA to mitigation; disbursement of donations• industry education/sharing resources


Developing Effective Government Policy

• evolutionary not revolutionary• public opinion, lobby groups• agencies and industry to advocate policy• public perception of need vs. Reality• media• historical data• post disaster events

Steps:

ID stakeholders ID common risks Develop strategy/plans advocate joint programs establish partnerships

Focus Group 3

must convince industry that mitigation is good for the bottom line (good economicdecision), good corporate citizenship; good competitive advantage;government to be responsible for public safety (obligation, therefore, mitigation isimportant);key is to find champions in each sector (government and industry to promote);partnerships - sharing of resources between industry and government - a lot of groupsof people are looking at the same issues - need to bring them together so cooperativeventures can take place;government must see a reward which is political (votes);public must see benefits;government must also "do right thing" - responsible for public safety;danger that people might let government do everything and not do personalmitigation;federal government as facilitator but, must do work on risk assessment andinformation must be made available to people;local and federal government have different processes and agendas - starting amitigation strategy is a bit like a fishing trip (just putting your rod in a seeing whatcomes up) since we don't have experience with this - we have to find opportunities toput strategies in place;

224 Appendix F

no interface between groups exist - need information sharing and understandingbetween groups;co-operative ventures (like Canadian Banks doing joint training ventures);banks important corporate citizenship - important if only institution in a small town -banks are a utility?Must be aware of involvement in community;banks have a self-interest in being aware of disaster in community - bank is part ofcommunity, therefore, bank recovery from disaster is part of community recovery andvice versa;two levels of planning at each level (emergency plan four the public; and plan forthemselves;

Organizational PublicMunicipalGovernment: Federal/ProvincialUtilities (Hydro, etc.)Industry

• industry focus on recovery presently but changing and can contribute to mitigation;• industry part of solution but can be part of problem (if hazard wastes/materials are

involved);• education - universities important in getting information out;• government important and academics important;• partnerships and pooling knowledge;• government working as facilitator;• links need to be made between government and industry;• banks and corporate need to realize importance of links;• dual planning role for government and industry;• cost of mitigation has to be shared as too expensive to do it alone;• industry associations a good avenue for fostering industry cooperation;• role of legislation - controlled and inversely proportionate to trust;• with more control and trust then greater cooperation and mitigation;• there is already cooperation (e.g., Interac Banking) but need to substitute service -

extend what is already there for mitigation;• DFA - federal and provincial cost sharing - what should government action be?• as politicians have to get involved after a disaster and is it realistic to expect

government not to get involved?• if community plans inadequate and disaster strikes, then government loan (DFA)

assistance - if community develops a mitigation plan after the disaster, then loanforgive - this is a good post disaster incentive for mitigation - therefore, becomes part


of the process of aid, recovery and planning to stop impact of disasters from occurringagain;ask community to take action if current plans inadequate according to standards;what if community needs extra money to put mitigation in place?municipal can take own loan to do it - planning and implementation and monitoring -structural rehabilitation as part of that;each community submits a plan for recovery - but they can choose to put moneytowards making changes rather than restoration to pre-disaster levels;could tie strings to aid money to encourage changes;what about prevention fund? Rather than waiting for disaster to happen, give moneyfor prevention that would be next step;three levels of government involved - change requirements of financial aid given outto require community to do pre-disaster mitigation;DFA is not a pool of money!if you can sell mitigation to government, then can get money up front - pre-disaster -next step - more funding for grants;BC government will be starting a fund;federal government uses model for building houses to promote low interest (2%)mitigation loans tied to guidelines - therefore government gets money back eventually- this allows communities to prepare in advance;industry made up of professionals therefore can work through professionalorganizations to go through training programs;must be linkage and cooperation between industry and government;

Summary

• UDI and home builders - key groups which can be used to lobby for mitigationefforts;

• business continuity planning - have different perspective - so remember;• collaboration (and partnership) - no one in isolation - disaster impacts on whole

community;• look for opportunities to bring stakeholders together;• realize that organizations outside of traditional planning may bring a lot of

enthusiasm;

. / Focus Group 4

• dissemination of information re: mitigation material and the bottom line impact that has a value element to attract industry in getting involved;

226 Appendix F

areas of liability get people's attention;create partnerships with professional organizations (i.e., construction, planners,architects);life and safety issue are the meat of the concerns;people (the public) are trying to get a grip on the subject;MIACC incorporates social responsibility into its ethics (example of a cooperativesystem);in that kind of process, there is an element of self-service but that's just the reality ofthis kind of area;economic impact of business loss is not well understood - commercial area needs tobe better prepared for event interruptions;recognizes this growing concern amongst businesses - this interest has promptedbusiness in involving themselves in mitigation strategies;business could help fund mitigation programs, especially when mitigation involvesthe public consuming a good marketed business;disasters are good business opportunities;the private sector has an interest in the level of the survivability of their localcommunity;interest in a healthy community is a good business decision;use successful programs (industry initiatives) as a model;interest in having a good business plan, from a local government perspective, is astrong benefit (i.e., employment, liability);need for business to maintain competitiveness - if one business engages in mitigationstrategy they will have a competitive advantage;what drives investment decisions in mitigation strategies?fear of losing business motivates business to get involved;insurance bureau's initiative in creating a Mitigation Institute is a good example ofindustry involvement - a national mitigation strategy should recognize this trend;is there a role for government in achieving a national strategy? Yes!federal government should contribute to a national strategy in terms of financialsupport;federal government wants to limit the amount of payout which is increasingexponentially - therefore there is an interest in limiting their exposure;MIACC is an example of an upfront investment in mitigation strategy;should element of mitigation be included in disaster relief program?multi-stakeholder committee should be formed to create a national strategy whichwould be initiated by the federal government (people like the MIACC committee);light on the ground approach - no new structure, integrate policy in existingorganizations;system of organizational system;what level of government is the organizational structure to occur?example of the relationship of stakeholders:


Summary

• the private sector has an interest in the level of the survivability of the localcommunity;

• the government has an interest in disaster mitigation;• national strategy does not = federal strategy;• to examine the concept of "enhancement" we must first understand what is the

present reality• Focus must reduce risk as well as recovery• specifics:

• forgivable loan and planning• infrastructure• low interest

• professional development/association and professionals

How?

Share resources• share tools• share expertise• collaboration• maximize existing associations• enthusiasm

Incentives

Business/Industry:• bottom line• corporate citizen• competitive advantage

Government (ed. Institutions)• political• obligation• benefit

228 Appendix F

Session 4: Establishing Partnerships

Focus Group 1

• will "partnerships" be tainted because of the notion of "downloading" responsibility;• not necessarily so - some partnerships are working very well;• who retains control of the message?• partnerships are essential to make mitigation work;• national mitigation strategy needs roadmap of "how to do it" (federal, provincial,

municipal, NGO, community work);• together but it's messy;• clearly defined roles needed;• momentum to work together needed - who leads?• federal role would be to lead;• USA model impressive;• FEMA document on "national mitigation strategy" too federal-oriented for Canada;• roles in partnerships dependent on who is involved;• different view: different levels should include different partners - e.g., insurance

companies and federal government at the national level, but no insurance involvementat the local level;

• structured partnerships are best;• "organic" character better than structured?• forest fire prevention system works well;• must consider context - depends on level of responsibilities - also can get unwieldy

with too many "at the table";• how do you limit partnerships?• focused on task;• partnerships will develop based on need, perception of need, but don't need to be

there if they aren't really contributing;• 3 levels required in Australia:

1. leader/facilitator;2. partnership for national coverage - at national level direct relationship with the

state level through MOUs on financial support for mitigation (structured,bureaucratic);

3. purpose-built partnerships (organic type);• reaction to commercial partnership - NGO partnership less reaction;• most NGOs already partnered in planning activities so structure already exists - but

what role in mitigation would they have?• role as communicators;

Session 5: Recommendations for Canada's Mitigation Strategy 229

• emergency measures closest model that exists - a national strategy would have to bebased on this - institutionalized - problems (political) might come from trying to pushstrategy too much;

• mitigation needs to be looked at more narrowly - code guidelines exist - needapplication, need structure to encourage mitigation;

• without structure, ad hoc prevails - advocacy needed of current structure;• expand mandate to include mitigation inside current window of opportunity;• Treasury Board has asked for costing analysis - slip in mitigation;• expand federal legislation to include mitigation;• negotiate and expand on partnerships with province;• enforcement of code is key - engineering code is already in place - apply it!• formal structure - bring government (federal) imperative;• reasonable enforcement now - retrofit 10X cost so cheapest to do it while building;• if national strategy shows benefits of mitigation, and if it is institutionalized, then it

will go ahead;• federal government role to big players (insurance companies, banks, etc.);• some mitigation is not cost-effective;• Australia's data bank exists to show importance of mitigation;• mandate mitigation often leads to high rent increases as land owners recoup cost;• mitigation in areas where possible, not necessarily earthquake;• so a federal led plan can be long term, sensitive to social costs;• Australian culture of emergency preparedness is vertical - there needs to be more

horizontal structure in mitigation;• "fuzzy" relationship in federal leadership role - more a facilitator role;• if federal emergency management "takes over" strategy how do other federal

programs react?• partnerships already exist in Public Works;• much consultation reduces problems - could be more problem with provinces;• potential partners keen to be involved;• but who leads?• mitigation is ongoing, emergencies one at a time events;• but emergencies are ongoing in place to place over time;• major initiatives need structured organization to carry forward - encourage, not

mandate, on the ground, not top-down, need day-to-day attention;• mitigation would become part of emergency management community;• LA situation deserves close attention - evaluate pros and cons;• mitigation works - e.g., Penticton forest fires;• government needs to know it saves money;• recognize that mitigation doesn't always save money;• preliminary ground work needed;• "little white house" in Saguenay good example;

230 Appendix F

"show cases" - taxonomy of mitigation, response, etc. - need to see all as part ofwhole -> change thinking;not just mitigation but mitigation as part of emergency management;crisis management improved by incorporating planning;where does mitigation fit in?Richmond (BC) quite progressive in earthquake engineering - minimum strategy inputting mitigation into emergency management;framework exists - including partnerships;partnerships that exist now built on "2 legs" of response and prevention though;going route of partnership will be popular

Focus Group 2

• how many of the groups identified in the partnership model (NGOs, government,industry, etc.) are actually working together?

• Partnerships could be for interdepartmental committees for mitigation;• a national association of emergency planners would be good;• why do we need partnerships? There has to be an objective - partnerships are

necessary because the groups have similar interests - partnerships link stakeholderinterests;

• not all organizations are involved in all stages/levels of disaster management - somemight be involved in recovery but choose not to get involved in mitigation;

• research is necessary especially at the university level - partnerships could emergebetween universities and mitigation groups;

• problem with partnerships is that some groups (e.g., engineers) do not want toparticipate yet they have so much to offer;

• advocacy is one way of getting or drawing in such groups into the area of mitigation;• there are different partnerships forming but there is nothing formal - there are pockets

of partnerships and the groups involved assist each other and exchange information;• objectives for partnerships must be identified - once you state specific objectives for

partnerships you are narrowing down to an extent or level which is not very sensiblebecause mission statements of the groups are too diverse;

• groups should be advocating mitigation, promoting its value;• the notion of partnerships should be crystallized - partnerships could emerge to carry

out research, develop data bases, etc.;• partnerships are also needed in terms of finances - who pays?• where do NGOs fit in all this? In advocacy and in formulating guidelines and

standards - in standards/guidelines, existing facilities must also be addressed as wellas who pays for upgrading;


• organizations such as Red Cross are an untapped resource who could help inadvocating as well as in financing mitigation;

• the closer an organization can get to the neighbourhood, to the individual, the greaterthe chance of persuading citizens to consider mitigation measures;

• warning systems and communications are important and partnership possibilities existin that area;

• there is a lot of confusion and organizations have different perceptions of "mitigation"and this is standing in the way of partnerships;

• in trying to come up with a definition of mitigation, aim at reducing risk of disasterand there is no need for ONE definition - as long as they are all working towards thesame goal, their own definition of mitigation is not important - if you forceorganizations to adopt a standard definition, you can run the risk of losing theirsupport;

• partnership infrastructure could be developed based on existing partnerships;• look at what the US and other countries are doing in terms of developing

partnerships;• what linkages exist at the community level?• linkages exist but they need to be brought up to the forefront;• critical steps in the next year? Mitigation is being examined from the bottom up but

the problem is that there is no framework to guide activities - a national framework is,therefore, essential;

• if business and individuals tell the government "I want migration because it is in mybest interest", then government will likely act;

• what is needed is the identification of the various roles and capabilities of theorganization;

• if you put legislation as something that needs to be done you can restrict certainorganizations;

• there are risks involved in partnerships but the benefits outweigh the risks;• if there is a policy which entices or brings organizations together, a lot can be

achieved but if there is no policy or a framework, then it remains difficult to enhancepartnerships;

Establishing Partnerships - Major Issues1. why partnerships?2. What are they to achieve3. clear roles & goals toward mitigation4. ID what to do5. ID what partnerships needed to achieve this6. ID partnerships that exist (e.g.,, advisory groups, committees, associations)7. stakeholders ID with strategy, neutral interests8. horizontal and vertical9. look at other countries

232 Appendix F

Areas for Partnerships

• warning systems• communications• local government• infrastructures• education and training• public awareness• advocacy "mitigation"• research• finance• guidelines standards• integration existing codes and standards

Working Partnerships

Advantages:• achieve common objectives with limited resources• the whole is greater than the sum• "buy-in" effect• reaching new members

Challenges:• common agenda vs. Private agenda• negative perceptions ("cop-out", partnerships for their own sake)• what about those that ought to be members and choose not to participate?

Concepts• partnership for NMS need not be one single homogeneous group - community of

partnerships• requirement for strong champion• partnership does not negate the need for legislation and regulations - reduces the

needs and enhances them• does not usurp required/existing legislation and regulation• there are gross root partnerships contributing to mitigation e.g., "Safer Communities"

initiativej

Conclusions

• partnerships are essential• various levels of partnerships will be required• must rope in existing partnership "build on" where possible


Focus Group 3

• already good senior level partnerships - focus should be local government;• greater potential four growth; possible regulatory level of coordination;• role for local government partnerships between each other;• does not see need for formal link between federal and local governments;• already some business organizations which have started partnerships - this needs to be

expanded - e.g., disaster recovery information exchange (DRIE) have more focus atlocal level, but national and international companies should have wider views;

• partnerships with national organizations and business, NGOs, etc., are very importantand with federal government too;

• local level work with local government and partnerships with private sector -therefore partnerships must operate at two levels;

• must have clear understanding of roles;• must "sell" goals of mitigation with other organizations - each community has its own

organization (e.g., Red Cross, Scouts, etc.) which can be used to help stressimportance to local government;

• mitigation could be built into provincial and municipal legislation;• must establish what organizations exist, then look at where responsibility lies;• partnerships are important for mitigation - but more important is leadership and

communication with and between these groups - include all stakeholders;• many different organizations - must respect jurisdiction of different organizations;• communication and training forums just as important as partnerships;• currently EPC dealing with province - should also be extended to local level;• heavy urban safety and rescue model - very important - e.g., involving federal, local

fire departments and individuals;• very important to start work with industry and include them;• command and control days are over for government at higher levels - move towards

partnerships;• mitigation is everyone's business - local, national - even Canadian government has

partnerships with USA (international border agreements);• partnerships needed because of knowledge sharing - no one organization has enough

knowledge to set up mitigation efforts on this scale;• partnerships provide economic benefits;• identify the continuum for partnerships, that way can avoid overlaps and fill in the

gaps;• national focus should be on standards and guidelines; can go to international

guidelines;• awareness, databases, and research on the local level;• problems with established partnerships (e.g., with MIACC) - several years of

development and trust before people buy in and contribute;

234 Appendix F

• people should be aware that the partnership is not likely to meet all their needs butwill be a compromise;

• "national" does not mean "federal" - federal are already part of national, scene;• in US, emergency planners are in every state - the state identifies areas which need

mitigation and tell FEMA;• go to CEOs at federal level and develop partnerships - they would be able to bring in

local business, e.g., Eatons;• need to clarify where are we starting from;• partnerships are an extension of preparedness, not separate;• provincial has big role - planning, zoning, development;• goals of organizations, EPC, must bring in other agencies;• EPC should included mitigation agenda;• link between other federal departments;• dealing with national, international, and NGOs too;• does not think EPC can take on that role - not enough resources;• provincial obligation to fulfill and monitor how local government is organizing;• national level of provincial representatives may not buy in to process due to friction

between levels of government;• MIACC forum - stakeholders sit at the table;• maybe 'facilitation' role is more appropriate- e.g., EPC was facilitator for urban

search and rescue;• EPC must put mitigation as part of role of departments - through a legislated

mandate;• coordination between federal, provincial, and local levels is required;• cooperation between NGOs and business is required;• support from both local and provincial governments will be necessary;• remember that we are facing scarce resources;• federal focus must move away from "response" and move on to mitigation;• they can do it through good leadership;• as a country we have to reduce the cost of recovery/response/disasters;• this must be sold from the government down;• we should have "a" mandate for mitigation rather than "the" mandate;• need leadership at the provincial level too;• strong role for province in information distribution, distribution of funds,

infrastructure, crown corporations (townships);• coordination of other provincial departments;• PEP does not have resources to do mitigation;• have to have partners and political will;• also coordinate, facilitate, support and implement at provincial level;• political will - very important;• to do this, mandates must be focused;


local governments connect with local people, individuals, businesses;local level is where it needs to "work";at both provincial and federal level, more partnerships on research side;must inventory current strategies - look at overlaps and gaps;give local community codes and information and scientific data which they can use inbuilding codes and other decisions;mitigation has to be sold at the local level;provincial and local government can provide tools;how to sell it: town meeting, meeting with local organizations, data for kids inschools, TV - kids programs like Sesame Street, work on media - public serviceannouncements,;how to sell mitigation to development the strategy is different than how to sell thestrategy once it is developed;lengthy process;must be persistent to build partnerships;who can be involved and who is not?environmentalists - use environmental lobby in joint with emergencymanagement/mitigation efforts;tap into NRC - to create local government self-audit of local community;industry - partnerships between provincial government, insurance and builders;introduce a certificate program for builders - provided by insurance - approvedbuilders for retrofitting and renovations - could tie this in with reduced premiums -need to do this at the industry level;welfare agencies concerned with 'safe' houses for poorer people;get media on board to help develop activity "safeguard";CBC has a national emergency role - must consider media as partners;long term continuous process - dialogue between stakeholders to bring them together;focus bottom up - that is where the buy in is;must be commitment and support at all levels higher up;funding is important;post-mortems very important and must be communicated (what worked, what didn't);stress this will happen at local level - that is where individuals can be reached;mitigation saves lives and money - must get this across to individuals andcommunities;if individual is to be a funding partner, they must be seen to be defending thecommunity;national award program for good participation - recognition - inexpensive and getsmedia coverage - get Prime Minister involved;

236 Appendix F

Summary

• international relationships are important;• national government and local government levels;• provincial role not clarified;• implementation ideas: meetings, forums, training;• partnerships provide opportunity for coordination and cooperation;• longer term relationships necessary for partnerships to work;• creative opportunities for implementation;• partnerships across and within, international community, national, and local;• links: business (national) with NGOs, business (local) with local organizations;• process: marketing, communication, training/forums, coordination and cooperation,

building trust;

Focus Group 4

• no one group has enough money or knowledge to go at it alone;• different agendas, different personnel act as barriers to partnerships;• partnerships formula is a proven method for sharing information;• partnerships don't happen by themselves, not belittling the model, just recognizing

the challenges;• challenges remain, but the model is sound;• who is included in a partnership;• we have a history of unclear partnerships given the relationship between the federal

and provincial levels of government;• a discussion on the definitions of partnerships is needed; (MIACC is an example);• recognize the conflicts between organizations;• the USA like partnership model - it puts pressure on organization's agendas;• partner for partnering sake is not worth it - if there is a specific project it works;• emergency preparedness is a good example;• multi-objective management movement - holistic planning strategies;• partnerships should be encourages in a meaning way;• the whole must be greater than the parts - working in partnership everyone needs to

get something out of it;• getting the purpose of the partnership as clear as possible right way is very important;• sector partnerships are not straightforward;• public perspective - partnership sounds like down loading responsibility;• MIACC goal is broad and vague because a national body needs to have flexible,

motherhood statements;• are partnerships all inclusive? How do you deal with "incomplete" partnership?


Some groups will never buy in to partnerships because of self-interest; organizationsbeat each other over the head with sticks;respect for the buy-in in partnerships;the idea of a partnership is not a panacea for problems - need to seek out partners thathave common goals;partnerships are finite - once the objectives has been achieved they continuefunctioning beyond their mandate;nature of the partnership changes - need for flexibility (i.e., NATO is it a militaryorganization or a political one?)opportunities to form partnership in existing organizations?once an organization is in a partnership, can it pull out?Many groups are involved in partnership re: mitigation - NGOs - community-basedgroups which are proactive (Red Cross, church groups);advantages of partnerships - reaching out to groups that are not traditionally involvedin mitigation;need for a champion for mitigation or "fire ants";regulation might be needed - this organization will do x,y,z, - mitigation needs to beingrained in the minds of the mass;"safer communities" example of good partnership organization - new initiative thatseems to work well; concept is broad-based consensus;agreements could be a replacement for guidelines - can use or adopt otherorganization's guidelines;

Summary

• advantages of partnerships - meet common agenda with limited resources; the wholeis greater than the sum of the parts; buy-in from membership;

• challenges - common agenda vs. Private agenda; perception of "cop-out"; what aboutthose that choose not to join? Partnerships for their own sake don't work;

• concept - partnership for national mitigation strategy not just one group but acommunity of partnerships - sharing common, specific agenda;

• need a strong champion;• aim to minimize legislation and regulation (does not intrude but reduces and

enhances);• does not utilize regulations and legislation;• there are grassroots partnerships that exist and must be included (i.e., safer

communities)• partnerships are essential - take advantage of building on existing partnerships rather

than re-create;

•

partnerships offer the best opportunity to capture ongoing initiatives;

238 Appendix F

Session 5: Recommendations for the Implementation of Canada's Mitigation Strategy

Focus Group 1

• how to sell merits to politicians and public at large;• since 1989 20 disasters over $1 billion in losses - insured losses rapidly increasing

(natural hazards);• these numbers could be under estimated;• no economic recovery included, or social costs;• more social absorption of loss over time;• Hurricane Andrew - many inspectors didn't have abilities to enforce codes;• Canadian figures are important - Vancouver earthquake could equal $30 billion in

losses - but even these large figures are a "blip" in economic terms;• In California State, the Federal Government covered a major portion of the loss in the

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake;• hazards like flood, earthquake are the big issues;• hail is biggest payout annually, though;• will hail exposure sell national strategy?• insurance industry needs reserve to cover Vancouver earthquake loss; and to lower

$30 billion loss statistic;• criticism will come if mitigation strategy is presented on potential savings based on

foreign (non-Canadian) examples - need Canadian statistics/examples;• government not able to keep increasing funding for recovery;• strategy has to be relevant to locale and economically merit-able;• maybe Vancouver earthquake is "bottom line" figure;• FEMA program is working well;• FEMA's image is better, but it is not necessarily working perfectly;• Australia program has no mandate;• Canadian solution lies somewhere between FEMA and EMA - legislative mandate

only;• can't approach it with "half of the stool" only - need to deal with the "big scary

things" and will have more chance of getting to "yes";• can't sell Vancouver Quake as the way to national mitigation strategy - need broader

base;• insurance disincentives already exist; ' ^• raise insurance rates to cover risk;• to whom do we need to sell the merits of a national mitigation strategy?• politicians won't respond just to the Vancouver Earthquake potential;• human lives need to be in equation for politicians to focus;


• need to focus on more than just money saving;• world examples needed to make "human life-saving" point;• broad-based community acceptance makes politician respond to need for mitigation

strategy;• more disasters, global problem - these are part of equation - long term trend needs to

be pointed out;• links need to be built between business and government;• suggested approach - take the proceedings from this symposium to EPC for their

approval/endorsement; then to ADM and Ministers - then public approval comes in(but not sure where);

• some feeling that the initiative will "die" if you go for public approval beforeministerial approval;

• support comes from getting political approval first - behind the scenes;• strategy first to have something to sell - public education allows political pressure to

come to bear on government (long process) to act on mitigation;• influential business organizations (IBC, MIACC, etc.) need to be on side too - time

may be a year on down the road;• run issue past ADM after next budget;• may need to amend legislation but indication that some room to move within

legislation now - this would be an easier approach;• IBC going ahead with their mitigation plans regardless of what happens with the

results of this symposium;• merits go beyond financial - need to consider sustainability, resiliency, "safe public",

"good ethics", etc.;• certain politicians see need for mitigation as good for 1) nation-building opportunity;

and 2) "safer communities" concept;• any merits statements about losses needed to be credible and substantiated;• Red River example, while required large expenditure, saved money from the

mitigative measures implemented;• we need to beware that short term mitigation doesn't result in future catastrophe (both

long-term and short-term results need to be considered at all times);• USA probably underestimating losses - don't know what total costs are;• what industry can contribute to this understanding?• marginal benefit is falling from putting money into recovery - mitigation is a better

payoff;• mitigation saves lives, recovery does not - lives already lost by the time you are doing

recovery;• mitigation can be difficult for those used to concentrating on recovery;• cost benefit of mitigation needs more data;• process of where document is going can be shared - if group agrees EPC is taking it

forward, that should be published;

240 Appendix F

• what sells it to the provinces? What's their question? (e.g., with JEPP changing, whopays?);

• province agrees to mitigation generally, then talk about details;• EPC looking for "robust" plan;• BC has seen 46 million in recovery, repair since 1996 to natural disasters - therefore,

mitigation is not a hard sell;• lots of mitigation is low cost, no cost;• taxpayer always pays for a cost - whether from federal or provincial funds;• mitigation is a tougher sell to province because it involves more stakeholders than

EPC usually deals with;• provincial annual conference on emergency preparation could be copied for

mitigation;• national policy is not stop or start of mitigation process;• US outline of strategy is a good guideline to use;• short, punch outline (one page ideal) becomes the "national strategy" - tactics are

more material, logistics (funding, delivery) even more details included;• how do we measure if a good job is done?• decline in average cost of disaster will show results;• over what time period do you measure results?• review, accountability needs to be built in - less data on Canadian disasters needs to

be improved to allow monitoring;• "quick response" to give travel money to social scientists to document disasters -

measure of effectiveness programs;• Canada weak on focused comprehensive use of academic researchers for this type of

activity;• documentation to do with mitigation is needed;• national mitigation strategy impact on local government - when do grassroots get to

know about the strategy? They can push strategy up to Feds when they know thefacts;

• do we need FEMA-type, local-level meetings? (this type of forum worked for thehealth care initiative in BC - "Closer to Home");

•. would these forums be the place where the local level "hears" about the strategy?• reporting on IBC will create demand for federal report on what they've done;• federal policy statement won't be useful to local level - but it makes means for

funding mitigation - structure develops means to move forward;• FEMA meetings model unlikely for this policy as it would be small;• how does local level help sell it to the federal level?• is strategy the umbrella - allows programs to start - then users can help push this

ahead?• EPC can champion this - take it to ADM in next 12 months;• in USA local government want Feds to take strong role so they can "blame" the Feds;


Merits• use world costs of insured loss• use Canadian figures to show parallel trend• national unity• safer communities

Scope/Context• concise with general principles• accountability (evaluation)

• metrics and performance review/measurement plan

Process• selling to politicians is more than just selling $$$$• generate ground swell• ID key stakeholders and use them• look at Health Care field (learn from their efforts)• emergency management conferences• Canadian Association of municipalities

Partnerships• Partnerships will have to be developed and expanded• partnerships exist in emergency preparedness and emergency response• need an institutional framework (existing framework in emergency measures

organizations)• need emergency management strategy which includes mitigation

Focus Group 2

Merit• save lives, reduces cost, saves property - these are the three things that must be used

in selling mitigation;• mitigation makes people responsible or accountable for their own lives;• a means to introduce environmental costs;• preserve cultural heritage;• there is an argument to be said about probability;• politicians are in favour of most effective cost reduction - but this is a dry logo and

does not sell well to the public;• there is need to illustrate examples of where mitigation is working and the benefits

that have come from mitigation;

242 Appendix F

Scope/Content• compile a list of priorities based on what your merits are - you could have a priority

list at a national, regional, or community level - the key is for the priority lists toreinforces the national good;

• a national strategy should be implemented at any level;• to be meaningful to Canadian, every Canadian must see the benefits of a national

strategy for mitigation - the strategy must have meaning for all Canadians;• the strategy must be doable or applied/action-oriented;

Process• wide involvement of all actors - a partnership approach;• the military can respond to national emergency and should be involved in mitigation;• an agreement with communities outside the border is conceivable and communities

can assist each other during a disaster or in mitigation;• national research offices in each province;• its not really an issue of leadership - rather its cooperation and coordination - a

national coordination mechanism is needed;• process should also include a mechanism stating that once strategy is formulated, all

provinces must support and sign on - the national strategy must be endorsed at thebroadest level of constituents (e.g., business, communities, government);

• broad consultation could stand in the way of development of a national strategy;• communications strategy must include the media;• recognize and reward successes;

Summary

Merits• saves lives and reduces human suffering• cost effective loss reduction• preserve cultural heritage

Scope• An NMS must have meaning/value to Canadians at all levels and can be applied at

each level.

Process for Development• national coordination mechanism/body• stakeholder inputs• communications/media strategy• endorsed by the broadest constituency• recognize and reward success


Focus Group 3

• impact of disasters is getting worse while the money available for assistance isdecreasing;

• increased expectations, a decrease in public tolerance - they expect faster recovery(e.g,. Winnipeg troops came in and everyone may now expect troops to assist);

• national unity agenda - shared defense of problems and dealing with it - alreadyshown that individuals came together and gave money for Winnipeg and Saguenay;

• mitigation is a good thing and all agree;• tolerance for loss is decreasing;• vulnerability is increasing;• public not willing to accept continued losses;• increase in expectations that government should cover losses;• government is willing to pay out less and putting responsibility on communities;• USA government not looking at reducing compensation but reducing cost of disasters

through mitigation;• insurance companies cover less financial exposure and therefore insurance is less of

an option;• government responding to individual pressure by withdrawing support;• national strategy/framework/reference point to unify agencies and focus work - will

increase efficiency of efforts;• currently we could reduce current fragmentation and inefficiency and capitalize on

synergy;• strategy - improving individual lives;• reduces loss of life ,injury, and increases safety;• different publics;• expectation that government will take care of the public;• mitigation can decrease financial liability;• government/public perception of blame of impacts - e.g., people suing over Saguenay

flood;• merit - government seen to demonstrate due diligence;• merit - reduces negative political impacts;• economic argument with mitigation;• private sector - loss of downtime;• merit - mitigation increases stability, resilience of community and economy;• more money will be available for other programs if financial impact of disasters is

reduced through mitigative activities; • /*• content - should be part of the emergency planning culture and also part of

community planning;• multi-disciplinary approach needed;• must be part of a culture (e.g., seatbelts. Recycling, etc.);

244 Appendix F

buildings built in recognition of hazards;"safety is a way of life" / mitigation is a way of life;strategies should be enabling - equitable - in terms of geographical and vulnerablepopulations;equity in terms of type of hazard too;quality of life implications should be considered (e.g., in most technological hazardswe separate life loss from life impact through disease, damage, etc.);mitigation not just as saving money, but also in safeguarding health;make strategy include health aspects;post disaster - physical health, mental health;important - health consequences of national disasters - OK t o include rather thanhealth hazards themselves;should look at protecting the community safety and that should include broad hazards- natural and non-natural, overall community protection;Red Cross took up Aids in Vancouver due to 50% epidemic - therefore Red Crossresponded rather than mitigated;consensus among group that not looking at disease in terms of mitigation, but ifsudden outbreak then it is response;early detection of disease may be by mitigation;a way around this is partnerships with agencies already involved in healthemergencies; therefore, government partnerships should include existing departmentsand agencies at local level to broaden horizons to mitigation;therefore, encourage cooperation in existing structures;agreement that role of mitigation in epidemics work with existing departments to helpthem;person-induced hazards should be looked at more - in relation to technologicaldefinition;phased approach is key - small bite-sized pieces;finding someone to "run" the project;funds will be required;research to "sell" the idea;project rather than process;EPC and Prime Minister as champion and involve EMC;but concern that the federal and provincial may not support this approach;consultative body which includes all levels of government;possibly a task force approach;key stakeholders must be identified for the development of the policy (in both federaland provincial departments): federal departments, UBC, CMHC, Transport Canada,Public Works, Defense, Agriculture, Economy;MIACC - 8 federal departments, 6 provinces, industry association, NGOs,municipalities (31 on committee);more research into stakeholders before choosing;


• there should be some involvement of NGOs - although phased in approach, don'thave to have everyone at table at once;

• cross-province - focus groups so every province feels a part of the process - will resultin better acceptance;

• phase 1: preparing of document (should have some provincial input);• phase 2: going out to province with document;• use EPC as reporting organization that ad hoc committees report to/steering

committee concept;• federal/provincial senior officials (currently exists) - use them as the reporting

structure;• make NMS responsibility of National Roundtables reporting to the Prime Minister;• idea of top CEO/Key leaders to take leading role (e.g., like 1996 Hazards conference);• they are champions but who will do the actual work?• has to be a secretariat function;• agreement that federal/provincial group as reporting structure with broader

stakeholder groups reporting to them;• should have industry, NGOs, key champion on committee;• first group (steering) must decide how to carry out a nationwide consultative group;• need more grass roots involvement - prepare groundwork - web site, education,

articles;• but who does it and who funds it?• we should put this on the agenda of the steering committee;• can EPC request money to carry this out?• but budgets are shrinking along with department size/resources;• an emergency preparedness week (already exists in May each year) - good vehicle for

awareness program, also MIACC, Safeguard, circulation of emergency planningdigest;

• need a coordinated approach - although does not require funding;• goal could be public participation as well as consultative process;• media involvement is important;• academia very important - research;• first nations could be involved at provincial level;• some felt that it could get too complicated by involving too many interest groups;• a national meeting - a launching process can involve first nations;• in USA - natives often disaster victims so FEMA did involve them in process;• identify key stakeholders rather than all stakeholders;• champion -need high profile, respected, recognized across the country (not an

industry 'rich' guy like Bill Gates) - not necessarily just government/industry - peoplemust be able to identify with the champion;

• lack of comprehensive diagnosis - we know our current situation is not idea, but nosummary of what is out there, who players are - how the system currently works,

246F

inventory of analysis (may be a good role for a task f

orce under the steering committee);• must have distinction between steering committee and who will do the work;• they need to carry out tasks (consultant possibly) - need an independent

(non-political) - must give consultant a clear mandate;

• Canada has more of an uphill battle than US;• patience is important;• will have to aggressively seek financial support;• must have dedicated people on steering committee;• USA willing to help;• FEMA have trans-boundary agreement with Canada for disaster response;• agreement should be amended to include mitigation;• harmonization of mitigation activities;• cross-border, joint bodies;• summary of stakeholders identified: federal, provincial, local government,

NGOs,media, academics, business, industry, utilities, community;

Context• Vulnerability is up• public tolerance is down• expectation (public affected, safety) is up• insurance ability is down• budget/demand/ability is down - and moving dynamically• we have proof mitigation works• Framework

• reduces inefficiencies• reduces fragmentation• encourages synergy

• Proof- Research• safer environment• saves lives (formalize/document)

• Due diligence• economic impact• reduces

• viability• resilient

Content/Scope• Quality of Life (physical, emotional, health)• Enabling (range, means)


• Equity/Efficiency• Multi-disciplinary• All inclusive/hazard - flexibility

All Hazards• consultation with health on principles/process

Process• the list we had going in was great to start from• federal/provincial group

• senior officers• ministers

• ad hoc committee• key stakeholders

Approach/Requirement Requirements for Success• Steering Committee Tasks Tools• National consultation Manager• Process of public participation Budget• Complete diagnosis Profile

• through this approach, the steering committee could then develop a report that couldform the basis for a national mitigation strategy

• PLUS : International Harmonization!

Focus Group 4

• province needs to contribute to a strategy;• cost-sharing is needed;• business perspective - indirect loss due to an extreme business interruption loss -

government needs to take a more business approach when calculating loss;• prove that mitigation works;• nation cannot meet future disaster need;• unacceptable consequences both social and economical;• USA and Australia are strong examples;• quantify disasters in a holistic manner;• information needs to be collected -if it is not yet certain/quantified;• group doesn't believe that proof exists showing that mitigation is cost-effective;

248 Appendix F

• need to provide evidence that an appropriate level of mitigation is undertaken;• case studies need to be conducted;• Winnipeg flood may prove mitigation works - events need to prove mitigation works;• Mississauga train derailment event proves mitigation works;• agreement on a need to prove mitigation is needed;• national resources are limited for event payoffs;• monster losses drive decisions not small ones;• although we are susceptible to LA and Kobi sizes of events, our economy cannot

support to payout losses;• cheap things (actions) are cost effective;• risk exposure is high for one event; human factor is not considered; people want

government to spend on mitigation not recovery; public is ready for mitigationstrategy;

• most losses are small losses - cumulatively its become a lot;• GDP is impacted by catastrophic loss;• are we are advocating something we can't defend?• Public doesn't care about how much an event cost business or insurance companies -

people will buy in to mitigative measures;• there are mechanisms in place for focusing more on mitigation;• how much impact can you absorb?• Research will be done on cost-benefit analysis for mitigation;• national exposure cost needs to be analyzed;• resources will be severely effected by a catastrophic loss;• reasonable mitigation measure will limit loss;• big vs. Small loss issue - big issue take away momentum from mitigative strategy;• needs a basis for building a national mitigation strategy;• studies needed on mitigative options;• proof exists;• need to wrap numbers around anecdotal results;• a catastrophic event would have tremendous economic consequences;• are we spending the correct amount of funds?• A national mitigation strategy is politically expedient;• there is a need to prove in what circumstances mitigation would be beneficial;• quantify the indirect and direct data;• we have the opportunity to reduce loss through mitigation;• social, financial, and environmental cost of disaster should be quantified (full cost-

accounting);• use existing mitigation research - not much out there;• opportunity lost because we don't know what material is out there being produced by

a variety of stakeholders;• mitigation can be cost-effective in terms of saving lives, dollars and the environment;


• quantify today's exposure;• in some cases mitigation will pay, other cases it will not be cost effective;• no money available for a national mitigation strategy;• need to flush out details after the concept is "sold";• disasters are expensive so there is merit for undertaking a national mitigation strategy;• opportunity is a good word - need to be seen as doing something;• disasters are expensive in terms of social, financial and environmental costs so there

is merit in undertaking a NMS;• content and scope should deal with natural hazards and person-induced;• regions should deal with pieces of a NMS;• give the regions the tools to manage the NMS;• "Federal" and "National" mean different things and should be kept separate;• application of concepts will differ in each community;• broad umbrella has merit - need for specific action also though;• framework should be left in conceptual terms;• process needs to be broad to include those not present at the symposium;• tools should be included;• should appear to have a "do if/actionable characteristic;• buy-in from primary stakeholders (they need to be identified);• partnerships by using fora;• promote implementation of mitigation measures;• pursue best practices;• full endorsement of EMA's strategy;• develop partnerships;• awareness and education;• strategy requires risk assessment as a tool; .

Summary

• quantify present direct and indirect costs of disasters (lives, financial, environmental);• estimate exposure of catastrophic event and the probable impact on our society;• although we intuitively agree that mitigation can be cost effective in many

circumstances, the statement needs to be substantiated with case studies;

don't use statements that can not or are not substantiated

1. although we intuitively agree that mitigation an be cost effective under many circumstances, these statement needs to be substantiated

1

· web viewto make this work, it was agreed that solutions must be provided that are easy to...

Documents