archived content contenu archivé 551.5.c2... · 2013. 7. 19. · archived - archiving content...

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

HV 551 .C2 M5 199

.5

8

MITIGATION SYMPOSIUM: Towards A Canadian National

Mitigation Strategy

Summary of Symposium Proceedings

January 1998

ell The Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre The University of British Columbia

IM

0

I

I1

EBureau

^^^

<,`e®p

cd

W ® ^

'7

d` cCanada Canada

d• a^°,S^urante

I

MITIGATION SYMPOSIUM:

Towards A Canadian NationalMitigation Strategy

Summary of

Symposium Proceedings

January 1998

Emergency Preparedness Protection civic

Contents

CONTENTS

INTENDED AUDIENCE iii

THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

FOREWORD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

Approach vi

Findings and Resulting Action Items vi

Conclusion vii

APPROACH 1

Introduction 1

Aim of the Symposium 1

Objectives 1

Outcome of the Symposium 2

Preparation 2

Working Definitions for the Symposium 3

Process for Participation 4

FINDINGS AND RESULTING ACTION ITEMS 6

Building Safer Communities - Sustainability Issues 6

Building Safer Communities - The Role of the Insurance Industry 7

Developing Public ParticipAction 8

Encouraging Goverrunent and Industry Action 9

Establishing Partnerships • 9

Presentation from FEMA, United States of America (Richard Krimm) 10

Presentation from EMA, Australia (John Salter and Jonathan Abrahams) 10

Refinement of Definitions 11

ü Contents

FINDINGS AND RESULTING ACTION ITEMS (Cont'd)

Consolidation of Findings and Resulting Action Items .................................................11

1. Merits of a National Mitigation Strategy ................................................................12

2. Scope and Content for a National Mitigation Strategy ........................................... 13

3. Recommended Tactics for a National Mitigation Strategy .....................................13

4. Process for Designing a National Mitigation Strategy ........................................... 14

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

APPENDICES

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

Participant Roles .............................................................................................................21

Symposium Participants .................................................................................................21

Coordinators ............. ......................................................................................................26

Facilitators ........ ..............................................................................................................26

Observers ........................................................................................................................27

Recorders ........................................................................................................................27

APPENDIX B - QPIS (QUESTIONS, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES) ...........................29

Overview ........................................................................................................................31

QPI Categories ................................................................................................................31

QPIs for the Mitigation Symposium ...............................................................................32

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

IIIIIIIIII

II1II

Summary of Symposium Proceedings iii

INTENDED AUDIENCE

This document is a summary of the complete symposium proceedings produced for the joint sponsors of the Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy.

This concise version is intended for distribution to those practitioners and senior level officials who are looking for information about the process and the results of the symposium but who do not require the detailed records of the proceedings.

In this version of the document, the following sections have been withheld:

• the submissions of each of the participants in response to the Questions, Problems and Issues (QPIs) that formed the basis of the symposium discussion; and

• detailed records for each of the breakout sessions.

This condensed version has been created to assist with the widespread distribution of the results of the symposium, which will provide exposure to the recommendations and action items developed within the project. It is not meant to replace the more comprehensive proceedings detailed under separate cover.

Individuals looking for further information regarding action items identified within the context of the symposium should contact the sponsors of the project for access to the complete symposium proceedings.

Chris Tucker, Senior Scientific Advisor Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) 122 Bank Street 2nd Floor, Jackson Building Ottawa, Ontario K I A 0W6 Phone: (613) 991-7071 Fax: (613) 996-0995 E-mail: [email protected]

Grant Kelly, Project Director Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) Catastrophic Loss Mitigation Suite 1800, 151 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M5C 2W7 Phone: (416) 362-2031 Fax: (416) 361-5952 e-mail: [email protected]

iv Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

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.

1 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 Greene Director, Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre University of British Columbia

Summary of Symposium Proceedings V

IIII11IIIIIII

FOREWORD

Recent natural disasters in North America and their devastating impact require that we takeaction and reduce the spiraling costs of recovery. Canadian activities and legislation havefocused on preparedness and response. As a result these components are well studied anddeveloped, and many communities have successfully implemented effective programs. Onthe other hand, the components of recovery, especially reconstruction, and mitigation havenot been fully developed. This is due in part to the perceived complexity, lack of processdirection, and the overwhelming potential costs associated with recovery and mitigation.However, the participants believe that the impact of hazards can be significantly reduced byapplying the knowledge we already have to the formulation of a National MitigationStrategy. 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 thecombined efforts of Canadian participants. The project team worked on an aggressivetimeline to bring together diverse skill sets and to formulate a set of recommendations thatwould allow the joint sponsors to take the results forward and to promote action on thedevelopment of a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada.

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

It was not the intent of the symposium to develop a blueprint for a National MitigationStrategy; such a goal would be premature at this time. Rather, the mission of the programwas 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, theword "towards" was consciously used within the title).

1

vi Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

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.

Summary of Symposium Proceedings vii

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:

I 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.

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII

Summary of Symposium Proceedings 1

APPROACH

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

Introduction

Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) jointlysponsored the Mitigation Symposium, which was coordinated and conducted through theDisaster 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 takeaction and reduce the spiraling costs of recovery. Canadian activities and legislation havefocused on preparedness and response. As a result these components are well studied anddeveloped and many communities have successfully implemented effective programs. Onthe other hand, the components of recovery, especially reconstruction and mitigation, havenot been fully developed. This is due in part to the perceived complexity, lack of processdirection, and the overwhelming potential costs associated with recovery and mitigation.

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

To present recommendations for the design, development and implementation of aNational 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,

I

2 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. Establis.h 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 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.

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 of the Comprehensive Symposium Proceedings.

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 commimities 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 definitionsbased on participants' feedback and contributions (see Findings and Action Items Sectionsbelow for a review of the refined definitions).

Process for Participation

The timeline for the mitigation symposium project was aggressive and was designed to meetthe joint sponsors' milestones. The overall approach, therefore, supported the achievementof 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 keyquestions, problems, and issues (QPIs) related to the topic of mitigation in general and morespecifically, to the design, development and implementation of a National MitigationStrategy for Canada. Each participant was asked to submit a written response to a number ofthese QPIs (maximum of four) as well as a general discussion paper on an area related tomitigation that they are specifically interested in.

Once submitted, these summaries were compiled and circulated to all participants for reviewprior to the symposium. (See Appendix E of the Comprehensive Symposium Proceedings.)

2. A Two-Day Symposium

The two-day symposium was held on November 28 and 29, 1997 at the University of BritishColumbia campus. It was conducted in a workshop format to discuss the resulting responsesto 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 discussionsfocused on problem definition and questions that needed to be addressed as a result of thesubmissions (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 participantswere asked to spend some time working together on the various issues andrecommendations. Each focus group included five or six participants, a facilitator, anobserver, and a recorder.

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII1 ,

II


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

1. Building Safer Communities 2. Building Safer Communities: The Role of the Insurance Industry 3. Establishing Working Partnerships 4. Enhancing Industry and Government Action 5. Encouraging Public ParticipAction 6. 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.

I6 Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy

FINDINGS AND RESULTING ACTION ITEMS

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

Building Safer Communities-Sustainability Issues

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

To support mitigation activities in general, and in more specific terms, communitysustainability, it is recognized that a national policy is needed. However, such a policyshould be formulated by providing frameworks and models for communities to evaluate andimplement 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 industrycan 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 andregional governments. Therefore, local governments must be in touch with the citizens oftheir community in order to initiate action.

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

Mitigation should be viewed in a broad context that includes all hazards or at least multi-hazards. There.is a need to focus on "commonalties" across the country to develop a groundswell 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. Theroles for education (government partnered with NGOs, schools, etc.) need to be clearlydefined. It is recognized that the media can be helpful in developing awareness, but,

III

IIIIIIII

I


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 nations, 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.


Additionally, if the government provides financial assistance after a disaster, whether or notyou 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 andmitigative activities.

Developing Public ParticipAction

Mitigation requires activity-it cannot simply be mandated with the expectation that it willbe implemented. Individuals will need to take action in order to implement the strategy atthe local and personal level. Personal involvement will be necessary for mitigation tosucceed. Awareness and education are essential, as are the "tools" to make it happen. Inorder 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 atall levels will be required, especially community mitigation strategies which are supportedwith 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 beundertaken to obtain appropriate strategies. To make decisions and to take action, a broadercontext than just mitigation is necessary-individuals need tools to make decisions(individually, and at the community level). Examples of tools might include awarenessprograms, community meetings, clear strategies for action, and the means to communicatewith political decision makers.

It is important to recognize that there is a great deal of competition for our resources (of timeand 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 solutionsfirst. Plans that overprescribe can be unproductive, and innovative ways of makingmitigation a positive experience are required.

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

The question arises as to whether people will participate if there is not coercion orenforcement. Creative solutions can be implemented to encourage individuals to act at boththe individual and community level. For example, lending institutions could requireinsurance prior to lending, or scale premiums in terms of perceived risk. Such actions would

III

IIIIIIII

I

IIIIIIIIIII


keep the concept of mitigation active in the public's mind and would support a change inculture to one of ongoing mitigation.

Encouraging Government and Industry Action

Business risk and community risk need to be considered jointly through the participation ofgovernments and industry. Government and industry play various roles within the context ofmitigation. They must mitigate against disasters and prepare themselves for sustainableoperation. In addition, business plays a role in response to disasters. Partnerships betweengovernment and industry will be valuable in the design, development, and implementation ofa 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 inchoosing projects would be to "fight the battles that you can win first." The use of successfulprograms as a model for further action will be beneficial.

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

Funding, however, would be an issue at the local level if the local government were requiredto 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. Partnershipsprovide opportunity for coordination and cooperation, and since no one group has enoughmoney or knowledge on their own, partnerships are needed as leverage to make a NationalMitigation Strategy succeed.

Partnerships can be at the community, industry, national, and international levels(multifaceted partnerships). This would be termed a "partnership of partnerships," whichrecognizes that there are already many organizations and associations working on mitigationactivities. It further acknowledges that government and non-government organizations,academia, industry and industry associations, communities and individuals must work inpartnership to design, develop, and implement an appropriate mitigation strategy for Canada.Within this context, this "partnership of partnerships" must be effectively managed to ensurethat 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 thenotion 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 accomplishedthrough clearly defined objectives and roles for partnership members; structured partnershipsare best.

Partnerships do not happen by themselves; they must have leadership and clear goals. Somesuccessful partnerships already exist, and these can be expanded and value can be gainedfrom observing how they work. There is also an opportunity to create partnerships withexisting organizations that are not generally involved in mitigation, such as environmentalgroups, social assistance groups. As well, a national association of emergency plannerswould be advantageous.

Advocacy is one way of drawing groups into the area of mitigation. Partnerships wouldprovide 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 UnitedStates. He discussed the process for implementing and promoting their mitigation programand 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 beingused in Australia. They. are making a clear distinction between hazard and risk: "hazard" issomething with the potential to produce harm, and "risk" is a concept used to give meaningto "things, forces or circumstances" that pose a danger. Salter noted that in Australia riskmanagement is a framework for the "systematic application of management policies,procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, treating and monitoring risk."

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

I1IIIIIIIIII

I

i',^

I

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII


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

• the establishment of parallel state/territory mitigation committees to manage strategies

• 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 wasagreed that further discussion on the definitions should be carried out in later phases of theproject, but consensus was reached that the following definitions would be presented by theoverall group for this report:

Mitigation

Actions to reduce the risk to life, property, and the envif•onment fi-om 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 thehazards were summarized to specify natural and person-induced only. It should also be notedthat substantial discussion took place regarding the specification of which hazards should beincluded and how they should be labeled. The group discussed natural, human, andtechnological, as well as diseases, epidemics, and environmental hazards and could not reacha 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 othertypes of hazards, and others felt that certain hazards were substantial enough to warrantspecific mention). The group did, however, reach consensus that for the purpose of thisreport, the above specification would be sufficient.

The objectives for the symposium included the requirement "[t]o develop a usable definitionfor `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 thatit is premature to address the second part of this objective until further work is completed onestablishing the framework for a National Mitigation Strategy and refining the definition (seeSummary).

I


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.

Ii


I

IIIIII

The wisdom and experience of the symposium participants have led to the recommendedendorsement of the design, development, and implementation of a National MitigationStrategy for Canada.

2. Scope and Content for a National Mitigation Strategy

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

Having considered the merits of a National Mitigation Strategy, it was important todetermine 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 allstakeholders as doable, actionable, tangible, and relevant. It should focus on the premise to"think global, act local" (including national guidelines, regional strategies, and localimplementation). 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 implementand that are "toolkit" based (packaged in a format that is distributable to those with themandate to take action). Furthermore, the strategy should focus not only on big disasters, buton 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 withoutprescribing 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 strategiesbeing designed and implemented as close to the community level as possible. Legislationwill 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 NationalMitigation Strategy.

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

• Exploration of new avenues to make the price of insurance an accurate measure ofindividual 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 enforce mitigative measures before or immediately following a disaster (if they use the funds to implement mitigative measures, then the loan will be forgivable).

• Refinement of land use and zoning regulations would ensure that current structures and communities 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, with appropriate mitigation measures regulated.

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

• Development of an endowment fund and/or reserves for mitigation assistance should be instituted. These funds would be allocated for mitigation assistance, rather than drawing resources 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, industty 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


1IIIIIIIII

I

must work in partnership to design, develop and implement an appropriate mitigationstrategy for Canada. Within this context, this "partnership of partnerships" must beeffectively managed to ensure that this program is successful. This model takes advantage ofthe experience of others (other countries, industry groups, advocacy groups, et cetera) withinthe area of mitigation and supports the notion of collaboration without duplication.

The process for designing a National Mitigation Strategy for Canada must be an approachthat 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 takeindividual action and also to encourage community and national action (change culture andattitude). The process will need to focus on commonalties and deal with differences withinand across communities and interest groups.

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

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

I


CONCLUSION

The symposium participants are convinced of the merits of a National Mitigation Strategyfor Canada. Disasters are expensive in terms of social, financial, and environmental costs sothere is merit in undertaking the design, development, and implementation of a NationalStrategy. 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 ofa Canadian Strategy must be substantiated through a comprehensive study of historical data,existing programs and investments, and available resources for recovery and responseactivities. Such a study will provide quantification of the costs (financial, social, andenvironmental) of disasters; the ability to pay for response and recovery; and the overalleffectiveness of mitigation vis-à-vis the required investment.

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

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has stated that they will be moving forward with their plansto create the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, which will be the focal point for theinsurance 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 emphasizethe tremendous results we had gained over the two-day workshop and to reflect on the workthat lies ahead:

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

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

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

III

. 1IIIIIIIIII

iIi


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.

I1

I111

I

IE1III

IIIIIIIII1

IIIIII

APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANTS

I

Participants 21

EIIf

IIII

I

APPENDIX A - PARTICIPANTS

Participant Roles

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

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

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

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

Observers attended each breakout session and were responsible for providing feedback to thecomplete group of what the key themes and ideas were that emerged in each of the breakoutsessions. They played an active role in assisting in the consolidation of therecommendations and common themes.

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

Symposium Participants

Name Organization AddressJonathan Abrahams Assistant Director, 8th Floor, Northbourne House

Policy 219 Northbourne Ave., Turner Act 2612Emergency Postal AddressManagement Australia PO Box 1020, Dickson, ACT 2602,

AustraliaPhone: (61-2) 6266-6219Fax: (61-2) 6257-7665E-mail:[email protected]]

Edda Brown Chief, Emergency Plans Place de Ville, Tower C, 14th FloorTransport Canada 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ont. K I A ON5ABDA Phone: (613) 947-5074

Fax: (613) 957-6414E-mail: [email protected]

I

22 Appendix A

Name Organization Address Ian Burton Adjunct Professor, 72 Coolmine Road

University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M6J 3E9 Scientist Emeritus, Phone: (416) 739-4314 (w) Environment Canada (416) 538-2034 (h)

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

Robin Charlwood Vice President 4342 Queen Street, PO Box 1001 Acres International Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6W1 Limited and Tel: 905-374-0701, L. 5348 CNC-IDNDR Fax: 905-374-1157

E-mai I: [email protected]

Rick Clevette Manager, 4342 Queen Street, PO Box 1001 Fire Management Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6W1 Protection Branch Tel: 905-374-0701, L. 5348 BC Ministry of Forests Fax: 905-374-1157

E-mail:[email protected]

Scott Crowley Director, Risk The Hudson's Bay Company Management 2101 -401 Bay Street The Hudson's Bay Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y4 Company Phone: 1-800-596-2342/(416) 861-6060

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

Hélène Denis Professor, University of P.O. Box 6079 Montreal Succ. Centre Town Ecole de Polytechnique Montreal, Quebec H3C 3A7

Street Address 2900 Edouard Montpetit . Montreal, Quebec H3T 1J4 Phone: (514) 340-4711, ext. 4569 Fax: (514) 340-4173 E-mail:[email protected]

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

E-mail: [email protected]

IIIIIIEIIIII

Participants 23

Name Organization AddressFaye Goodwin Manager 700 Montreal Road

Corporate Security and Ottawa, ON K 1 A OP7Emergency Phone: (613) 748-2758Preparedness, Fax: (613) 748-2213CMHC E-mail: [email protected]

Dexada Jorgensen BC Tel 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]

I

24 Appendix A

I

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

Business Resumption Toronto, ON M5 H 1 H IPlanning Phone: (416) 866-2084Scotiabank Fax: (416) 866-5706

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

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 Y I A 1C2


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

Fax: (613) 739-2599Alberta Office9931-106th Street, Edmonton, AB T5KlE2


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

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

Fax: (902) 422-6483

IIIIIIIIIIIII

I

I I I I I I I I

Participants 25

Name Organization Address Michael Salib President and CEO 265 Carling Avenue, Suite 600

MIACC Ottawa, ON K1S 2E1 Phone: (613) 232-4435 Fax: (613) 232-4915 E-mail: [email protected]

John Salter Assistant Director Mt. Macedon Road Development Mount Macedon VIC 3441 Australian Emergency Victoria, Australia Management Institute Phone: (61-3) 5421-5245

Fax: (61-3) 5421-5272 E-mail: [email protected]

Chris Tucker Senior Scientific 122 Bank Street Advisor 2nd Floor, Jackson Building Emergency Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W6 Preparedness Canada 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]

I I I I I I I

26 Appendix A

I

Coordinators

Name Organization AddressPamela Hollington Project Coordinator 207-222 West 4th Street

Rebound 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 Mail, 4th Floor& Environment and University of British ColumbiaDirector, Disaster Vancouver, B.C. V6T IZ3Preparedness Phone: (604) 822-4218Resources Centre Fax: (604) 822-6164University of British E-mail: [email protected]

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


Facilitators

Name Organization AddressMike Braham Director 122 Bank Street, 2nd Floor, Jackson

Emergency Building, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OW6Preparedness Canada Phone: (613) 991-7070

Fax: (613) 996-0995E-mail : Mike. B raham@epc-pcc. x400. gc. c

John Oakley Coordinator/Instructor 715 McBrideEmergency New Westminster, BC V3L 5T4Management Division Phone: (604) 525-5523Justice Institute of Fax: (604) 528-5798British Columbia E-mail: [email protected]

Laurie Pearce Disaster Preparedness 2206 East Mall, 4th FloorResources Centre Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3University of British Phone: (604) 929-4560Columbia Fax: (604) 929-4561

E-mail: ldpearce@unixg. ubc. caRoss Peterson Coordinator 147 East 14th Street

North and West North Vancouver, BC V7L 2N4Vancouver Emergency Phone: (604) 983-7440Program Fax: (604) 985-3733


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Lisa Bhopalsingh Stephen Billington Barbara Mugabe Shaugn Schwartz

Masters Students School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia

I I I I I I I I I I I

Participants 27

Observers

Name Organization Address Roberto Gonzalez Regional Director, BC PO Box 10000

and Yukon Division Victoria, BC V8W 3A5 Emergency Phone: (250) 363-3621 Preparedness Canada Fax: (250) 363-3995


Tony Heemskerk Director 455 Boleskine Road Provincial Emergency Victoria, BC V8Z 1E7 Program (BC) Phone: (250) 952-4895

Fax: (250) 952-4888

Larry Pearce Research Associate 455 Boleskine Road Disaster Preparedness Victoria, BC V8Z 1E7 Resources Centre Phone: (250) 952-4895 University of British Fax: (250) 952-4888 Columbia E-mail: [email protected]

Bill White Regional Manager, Public Works Canada and Government

, Pacific Region Services Canada Emergency Planning, Suite 1330, 800 Burrard Safety and Security Vancouver, BC V6Z 2V8 Finance, Planning and Phone: (604) 666-1095 Administration Fax: (604) 775-9380 Directorate E-mail: [email protected]

Recorders

I I I I

I

. 1IIII11I1IIII

1I

APPENDIX B

QPIS - QUESTIONS, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

II1IIIIIEIIIIII1

I

Questions, Problems and Issues 31

APPENDIX B - QPIs (Questions, Problems and Issues)

Overview

The 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.

QP1 Categories

To 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.

I32 Appendix B IQPls for the Mitigation Symposium

Discussion Area Q# QPI

Building Safer 1 Consider issues regarding high-risk areas (flood-plains,Communities landslides, etc). Include discussion regarding the

relocation or retrofitting of homes located in such areas.

2 Consider the issues related to sustainability ofinfrastructure and buildings during and after a disasterthat focus on the functionality of the structure after thedisaster.

3 Discuss the benefits and problems surrounding the idea ofa national insurance program. Consider and discuss:

• The socioeconomic and cultural issues that affectpeoples' willingness to purchase insurance

• Who would pay for such a program, but who wouldbenefit.?

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

business, corporations, local, provincial, federalgovernments)?

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

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

6 How can we incorporate a national vision of land-usedevelopment in order to reduce the risk fi-om disaster, whilerespecting the autonomy of local governments? (Considerzoning for high-hazard areas, etc.)

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

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIIII

Questions, Problems and Issues 33

Discussion Area Q# QPI

Developing Public 8 How do we ensure compliance with a National MitigationParticipaction Strategy?

9 What is the value of public awareness to the developmentand implementation of a mitigation strategy? And, what isthe role offuture participation of the public in thedevelopment phase of the strategy?

Enhancing 10 Discuss the merits of an all-hazards insurance program.Government and Consider whether such a program would ensure insurersIndustry Action provide coverage for all risk areas.

11 How can a mitigation strategy balance the

commercial/economic needs of business, with the socialand community requirements for sustainability, life safety,and recovery?

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

13 How can we convince the insurance andfinancialinstitutions to provide fundingfor mitigation and to formpartnerships with government and private sectororganizations to establish a viable mitigation strategy?

14 Should a percentage of DFAA be allocated for restorationwork (which may include upgrading for mitigativepurposes)? If so, how much?

15 Why have some mitigation strategies been successfullyimplemented (what are the motivators for designing andimplementing mitigation strategies)?

I

III

IIII

II1I11II

APPENDIX C

SYMPOSIUM AGENDA

LI

II

IIIIIIIII1Ir.

Symposium Agenda 37

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX C - SYMPOSIUM AGENDA

Thursday, November 27Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, 4`h 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 Communities10:00 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 Partnerships10:00 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

I

o F255

PSEPC/SPPCC LIEt/B BLIO

11111111 111 0000067302

HV 551.5 .C2 M58 1998

Mitigation symposium : towards a

Canadian national mitigation

strategy - Summary of ...

DATE DUE SLIP

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS RESOURCES CENTRE

2206 East Mall, 4t" Floor

University of British Columbia

Phone: (604) 822-5254

Fax: (604) 822-6164


Ii

i

I

IIIIIIIIIIEII

archived content contenu archivé 551.5.c2... · 2013. 7. 19. · archived - archiving content...

Documents