ARCHIVE - Discussion questions for the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy

• Executive summary
• Overview of the process
• Broad support for the NDMS
• Goals
• An integrated, iterative strategy
• Guiding principles
• Key elements
• Governance and accountability
• Outstanding issues
• Conclusion

Please note that this document was published before PS was created in 2003. Thus it reflects the old departmental name, Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP). We hope this causes no confusion.

Executive summary

In May 2002, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) conducted six regional stakeholder workshops on the development of a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS). The process chosen for the workshops was deliberative dialogue – an approach through which participants build a shared understanding of an issue and its complexities, clarify the assumptions and values underlying different viewpoints, arrive at common ground that can act as the foundation for strategy development and model a way of working together that will be required to further develop and implement the NDMS. A deliberation guide was prepared which presented three possible starting points for the NDMS: 1. Risk management, 2. Knowledge creation, dissemination and use, and 3. Empowerment – shared risks, shared choices, shared futures. The workshops began with a deliberation based on the guide. The afternoon worked from the common ground arrived at in the morning's session to explore possible NDMS goals, principles, key elements, measures of success, types of participation, assets and governance models.

The workshop participants were stakeholders from academe, the business community and industry, provincial and municipal governments and agencies, and non-governmental organizations (e.g., Red Cross, Salvation Army, Aboriginal groups, environmental groups). In total, 167 participants and 36 observers attended.

The participants strongly supported the idea of a NDMS that can operate across borders. Several key considerations for such a strategy were:

1. The NDMS should be national in scope, with shared responsibilities and ownership across jurisdictional lines.
2. The NDMS should lead to timely action within an iterative, continuously evolving process.
3. The NDMS should bring about a cultural shift in Canadian society, where disaster mitigation permeates private and public decision-making.
4. The NDMS should acknowledge the interdependence of stakeholders while establishing the clear co-ordination and leadership roles.

There was a high level of congruence on the key ideas to include in the goal of the NDMS. While various combinations are possible, the ideas can be grouped as:

The NDMS seeks to:

1. Strengthen and develop resilient and sustainable communities in order to reduce social, environmental and economic impacts of disasters.
2. Proactively create an environment in which capacity is built at all levels and risk management becomes a conscious element of decision-making.
3. Reduce risk to life, property, infrastructure, and economic activity from natural disasters.

Stakeholders share the understanding that the NDMS should integrate risk management and research within a culture of empowerment. Participants were clear that all three components need to be present for the NDMS to be successful. Empowerment was seen to be the central undertaking of the NDMS, seeking to bring about a cultural shift in Canadian society. Strong risk management, within an all-hazards framework, was considered "core business" that should support the process of empowerment. A well coordinated, accessible research program and a strong communications and information dissemination effort were seen as important building blocks for broad public and community decision makers' understanding and buy-in.

Five guiding principles for an integrated, iterative strategy emerged from the consultation. These were:

The NDMS should:

1. Instil values of trust, equity and fairness at all levels of decision-making. It should be clearly based on the collective good and not transfer risk downstream;
2. Be integrated in all development planning, and be flexible and scaleable to different contexts and communities;
3. Be community-based with a strong national commitment;
4. Be knowledge-based and promote best practices in a living, ongoing process that is continually reassessed at all levels;
5. Define clear roles and responsibilities, accountability and corresponding authority respecting established jurisdictions, in a context of transparency and public accountability.

Stakeholders identified numerous key elements for the NDMS. These can be grouped as: leadership and collaboration; shared resources; hazard identification and risk assessment; research and expertise; informed and engaged citizens; and incentives and penalties.

The governance and accountability structure is seen as playing a seminal role in generating public and political will for disaster mitigation. The following key governance issues were raised:

1. The governance structure should ensure national co-ordination, not central control. Accountability and decision-making should be linked to appropriate levels of authority throughout all levels of government and the community.
2. Local and regional authorities should participate in the governance of the NDMS. Lines of communications should be established and supported.
3. Notwithstanding jurisdictional issues, the direct participation of large urban centres presents a special consideration for the governance of the NDMS.

Participants raised a number of other outstanding issues. Some of these point to difficulties that may arise in the implementation of principles or key elements identified during the workshops. The issues include: the parameters of citizen engagement, the difficulty of achieving a long-term perspective in a culture of short-tem gain, the balance between private interests and public good, the true nature of partnership and finally the possibility of territorial and jurisdictional concerns impeding the success of the NDMS.

The workshops were carried out in a noticeably constructive and positive environment. Trust was impressively high amongst stakeholders who wish to see the existing momentum translate into tangible results in a timely fashion. This goodwill and trust surrounding the NDMS is a tangible and valuable asset. The degree of consensus on the way forward for a NDMS is quite high, with many variations on a theme being raised, but few fundamental clashes of views. Overall, participants look forward to a NDMS that is iterative, holistic, integrated and inclusive.

Overview of the process

1. Context

In June 2001, the Government of Canada announced consultations on a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS) in which all levels of government and stakeholders were invited to co-operate effectively to evaluate, prioritize and implement measures to reduce the vulnerability of Canadian communities to disasters. Bilateral consultations with provincial and territorial governments were initiated and continue. The overall objectives of the consultations were to:

• obtain views on the scope, policies and mechanisms for coordinating and implementing disaster mitigation activities in Canada;
• encourage better mutual understanding of disaster mitigation; and
• gather input that would contribute to the formulation of recommendations to the Government of Canada on options for a NDMS.

During the month of May 2002, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) conducted a series of six regional stakeholder workshops. These sessions built on the results of a national consultation held in 1998 on Canada's preparedness for disasters, which called for the development of a national disaster mitigation strategy.

2. Deliberative Dialogue Process

OCIPEP chose the deliberative dialogue process for the stakeholder workshops on NDMS in the spring of 2002. This dialogue approach was selected to:

• facilitate close collaboration among diverse stakeholders,
• strengthen and develop relationships, and
• build and model the kind of approach for working together that will be required to further develop and implement the NDMS.

Deliberation is a structured dialogue that assists in the discussion of important issues. It allows stakeholders to reason and talk together about basic policy directions in a way that goes beyond a debate, the presenting of positions or a casual discussion. The deliberative dialogue process allows participants to build a shared understanding of an issue and its complexities. It clarifies the assumptions and values that are often implicit in a point of view and seeks to identify common ground that can act as the foundation for policy development and elaboration.

A deliberation guide was prepared following an issue-framing session hosted by OCIPEP in January 2002, with seventeen government, non-governmental organizations and private sector participants. This guide provided the framework for the workshops' morning session. It presented three possible approaches to disaster mitigation:

• Risk Management;
• Knowledge Creation, Dissemination and Use;
• Empowerment – Shared Risks, Shared Choices, Shared Futures.

While these approaches are not mutually exclusive, they could imply different starting points for the NDMS. The principal purpose of the deliberation guide was to trigger dialogue rather than to present discrete policy options.

Daylong workshops were organized in Halifax, Montréal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. Each workshop started with a plenary to present the context and process for the NDMS workshop. Then small group discussions focussed on exploring strengths and drawbacks of each approach outlined in the deliberation guide. The group identified common ground emerging from the dialogue and noted outstanding issues. This common ground then served as a starting point for afternoon small group discussions exploring possible NDMS goals, principles, principal elements, key implementation issues, measures of success and governance. A closing plenary permitted sharing of the afternoon's results. Facilitators led the deliberative dialogue process and plenary sessions. Recorders produced detailed and synthesis reports capturing all workshop and plenary discussions.

Participation at each of the workshops consisted of various stakeholders from academe, the business community and industry, provincial and municipal governments and agencies, and non-governmental organisations (e.g., Red Cross, Salvation Army, Aboriginal groups, environmental groups). Participants were individually invited to attend the workshops based on their professional responsibilities or personal involvement in disaster mitigation or corollary issues. In total, 167 participants and 36 observers attended.

The positive tone in all six workshops was noted and appreciation of the deliberative dialogue process, including the deliberation guide, was generally voiced.

3. Synthesis Report

This report was prepared using the reports from each of the six stakeholder workshops. These are available on the OCIPEP website. In this final report, an effort was made to reflect the language and expressions used by stakeholders during the workshops while consolidating main themes and ideas.

Broad support for the NDMS

Stakeholders strongly supported the idea of a NDMS that can operate across borders. It should be sustainable and create community resiliency to reduce social, environmental and economic impacts of disasters. Several key considerations identified for such a strategy were:

1. The NDMS should be national in scope, with shared responsibilities and ownership across jurisdictional lines.
2. The NDMS should lead to timely action within an iterative, continuously evolving process.
3. The NDMS should bring about a cultural shift in Canadian society, where disaster mitigation permeates all private and public decision-making.
4. The NDMS should acknowledge the interdependence of stakeholders while establishing clear co-ordination and leadership roles.

1. National in Scope

The NDMS should be national (distinct from federal) bringing together key stakeholders across jurisdictional lines. Shared responsibilities and ownership of the NDMS are essential to its success and jurisdictional issues should not become an impediment. Leadership from the Federal government is expected, but collaboration is essential (and recognized as difficult).

2. Timely Action Within an Iterative Process

A sense of urgency to begin initiatives within an iterative, evolutionary process emerges clearly from the workshops. Most expect follow-up from the Government of Canada in the short term to move the process forward. It should be SMART (simple, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely). Legal impediments to cooperation should be removed. The NDMS should empower communities to conduct risk assessments and manage risk, enabling them to make informed decisions and to take action.

3. Cultural Shift: Take the Long View

The NDMS will need to focus on the overarching longer-term work required to bring about a cultural shift in society. Behaviours and actions should change over time and the NDMS should encourage individual responsibility while discouraging a victim mentality. Disaster mitigation should permeate all private and public decision-making processes. The Aboriginal concept of making choices based on the impact they could have on the 7th generation from now was often cited as an example of the time frame for a NDMS.

4. Interdependence, Co-ordination and Leadership

The NDMS should respect the different roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in a context of partnership and collaboration that involves the diversity and interests of all stakeholders and draws on their expertise and knowledge. The NDMS should have a decentralized and flexible approach and offer support to those on the front lines. It needs to take into account local initiatives.

Participants were supportive of OCIPEP's initiative and continued co-ordination and leadership role but insisted on the need for follow through in establishing a national strategy. Results of the 1998 consultation served as a reminder of previous attempts and of elapsed time.

Goals

The NDMS seeks to:

1. Strengthen and develop resilient and sustainable communities (resilient defined as robust, flexible, aware, adaptable, capable) in order to reduce social, environmental and economic impacts of disasters.
2. Proactively create an environment in which capacity is built at all levels and risk management becomes a conscious element of decision-making.
3. Reduce risk to life, property, infrastructure, and economic activity from natural disasters.

It is recognised that these goals can be packaged somewhat differently, and indeed in the workshops there were various combinations. However the three goals provided above do present the key ideas expressed by participants as goals and tries to remain true to the language they used. Some ideas are more oriented to the why of a goal and some are more in line with the how, but all resonated strongly with participants.

An integrated, iterative strategy

Stakeholders share the understanding that the NDMS should integrate risk management and research within a culture of empowerment. Participants were clear that all three components need to be present for the NDMS to be successful.

Empowerment – Shared Risks, Shared Choices, Shared Futures

Empowerment is the central undertaking of the NDMS, seeking to bring about a cultural shift in Canadian society. Strong risk management and research should support it. Citizens, local governments and corporations should benefit from research, up-to-date knowledge and best practices. The NDMS should be a collaborative effort of all levels of government and generate community involvement. Mitigation strategies should permeate personal, commercial and public decision-making. Culture change and capacity building are required, with a bottom-up approach built on trust and focussed on ensuring that various levels of government are aware of and able to assume their mitigation responsibilities while being responsive to local initiatives. Leadership and vision are important and should be cultivated at all levels.

Risk Management

This is "core business" but it is insufficient, in and of itself, to bring about fundamental change. There is a shared understanding that an "all-hazards" approach is necessary. A risk assessment framework that reduces risk in one sector should be cognizant that risk reduction in one sector/area could increase risk in another sector/area.

Knowledge Creation, Dissemination and Use

A well co-ordinated, accessible research program and a strong communications and information dissemination effort are seen as important building blocks for broad public and community decision makers' understanding and buy-in. Applied research must consider social, environmental and economic impacts of disasters. Feedback loops connecting researchers and users are essential. Information should support links to direct action and behaviour change.

Guiding principles

Five guiding principles for an integrated, iterative strategy emerge from the consultation. The NDMS should:

• Instil values of trust, equity and fairness at all levels of decision-making. It should be clearly based on the collective good and not transfer risk downstream;
• Be integrated in all development planning, and be flexible and scaleable to different contexts and communities;
• Be community-based with a strong national commitment;
• Be knowledge-based and promote best practices in a living, ongoing process that is continually reassessed at all levels;
• Define clear roles and responsibilities, accountability and corresponding authority respecting established jurisdictions, in a context of transparency and public accountability.

1. Fair, Equitable and Sustainable:
   Values of trust, equity, and fairness are needed at all levels of decision-making. The NDMS should propose ways to measure if mitigation decisions and actions are fair and equitable throughout society. It should reflect individual and collective good and it should not transfer risk downstream. It should use a 'systems approach' to establish the interrelationship of different elements working in tandem. The NDMS needs to include ethical considerations such as trade-offs between collective and individual responsibilities. It should calculate probabilities and assess vulnerability to establish priorities on the basis of potential loss and available finite resources.
2. Integrated in Development Planning:
   The NDMS should build on what already exists. Its activities should be linked and incorporated into other aspects of development planning: public and private infrastructure investments, ecological protection and socio-economic development. Mitigation is best done as an integrated, not a stand-alone, endeavour. The NDMS should be flexible and scaleable to different contexts, communities, and jurisdictions. It should be directly linked to hazards at every level. It should ensure long-term sustainability through its planning cycles.
3. Community-based, with a National Commitment:
   Risks are best interpreted and mitigated by those closest to the event. The NDMS should be respectful of diversity, encourage collaborative and pro-active participation, and be open and accessible to all. Stakeholders should be able to access resources commensurate with existing risks and mitigation assessments. Some stakeholders believe priority should be given to mitigation strategies within government. The federal and provincial governments should work on interdepartmental co-operation, information sharing and "inter-operability".
4. Knowledge-based, Promoting Best Practices
   The NDMS should be knowledge based, and promote and share best practices. It is a living, ongoing process, continually reassessed at all levels. It should help identify gaps and duplication in mitigation strategies locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
5. Clear Roles and Responsibilities
   The NDMS should define responsibility, establish accountability and ensure empowerment. Authority and accountability should come with clear understandings of roles and responsibilities (at all levels of government, corporations and individuals). For example, a "top-down" leadership approach based on existing authorities and jurisdictions might be needed in some circumstances, although it should not be the default approach. Open reporting and public accountability should tie into a consistent, clear, transparent, timely and inclusive process leading to shared responsibility that creates ownership and buy-in. As a general rule, the NDMS should respect jurisdictions, policies, regulatory frameworks and decisions of various levels of government. However, trans-boundary issues do arise between various jurisdictions within Canada as well as across international borders. In these instances, stakeholders underlined the importance of not letting jurisdictional issues become an impediment to an effective NDMS.

Key elements

Stakeholders identified numerous key elements during the consultation. They have been synthesized into six key elements that closely mirror and support the six elements of an NDMS proposed by OCIPEP in the January 2002 discussion paper. However, in keeping with this report's intention of using language and expressions that emerged from the workshops, the elements are presented in the participants' terms. Additionally, during the workshops, in depth conversations on the key elements revealed new insights. Variations of the elements were suggested and nuances in language were used indicating some subtle differences in meaning and intention. The table below offers a comparison between the elements as expressed by the participants and as presented in the OCIPEP discussion paper. The workshop elements are then expanded on.

Stakeholders were generally pragmatic in their considerations and direct in their appreciation of political dynamics and the ensuing citizens' engagement. The notion of empowerment permeates most of the key elements.

1. Leadership and Collaboration
   Strong and visible leadership, including champions at various levels of government and the community are required to achieve success, as are clearly identified roles and responsibilities, high levels of collaboration and shared responsibility between all stakeholders. The NDMS should ensure leadership while avoiding duplication of roles and responsibilities.
2. Shared Resources
   NDMS should share financial, human and intellectual resources. It should foster the complementary use of resources and build on what already exists. Ideas expressed include a central clearing house / national information system with professional screening and/or review of information, a "one-stop-shopping" resource centre of best practices, hazard identification and inventory, disaster data, research, planning templates and checklists, definitions and exclusions, reference documents and professional connections domestically and internationally.
3. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
   In collaboration with stakeholders, hazard identification and risk assessment would need to include consistency in models and methods. Ideas suggested include: prescriptive standards and/or performance standards; creation of norms, benchmarks, milestones and targets; flexibility, transferability and scaleability; ISO type quality control standards in mitigation or rating of communities in terms of risk management; continual evaluation and improvement of situations, resources and capabilities evolving over time; economic return on investment, etc.
4. Research and Expertise
   Applied research should consider socio-economic, environmental and economic impacts of disasters. Information sharing should be open and transparent, and not be subject to commercial interests. NDMS should include a strong knowledge "agenda" that is based on accessibility, transportability and knowledge creation. OCIPEP and others require sound and comprehensive levels of knowledge to have credibility to do the work. The NDMS should use existing expertise and knowledge and help create a "hazards and mitigation" community across Canada. A number of local, regional, provincial and national organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM), National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure, the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction and industry sector organisations were cited as potential models of capacity building and professional networking. Co-ordination mechanisms should combine forces and look for similar programs from which to learn (sectors, organisations, and countries). International experience should be considered (learn, share, support, exchange). The International Joint Commission was often cited as an example.
5. Informed and Engaged Citizens
   Educated public decision makers and regular feedback to the public will be essential in generating broad public awareness and support for disaster mitigation. The example of anti-smoking campaigns was used to illustrate the type of cultural shift and the level of individual responsibility and ownership required to ensure a successful NDMS. Mitigation measures should be recognized as important initiatives in the right direction: Y2K, Winnipeg Floodway, Bill 173 in Québec and Bill 148 in Ontario, BC Earthquake plan, etc. Information dissemination should help create broad awareness of mitigation issues without creating a sense of panic and fear. Public messages need to be consistent in order to effect public attitudinal changes.
6. Incentives and Penalties
   Stakeholders hold numerous complementary and opposing views on a prescriptive or incentives based approach. There does seem to be a shared understanding of the need for a wide variety of tools to move the NDMS forward. Such tools identified by stakeholders could include enabling legislation and/or clear mitigation mandate, a policy/inducement framework, financial incentives for retrofitting, cost premium in building "disaster proof" structures, tie-ins to North American (US) standards for industry, incentives for mitigation measures taken in light of the risk factor and a vulnerability inventory of public facilities (day cares, schools, seniors' centres, community clubs, bridges, etc.). At one end of the spectrum, some stakeholders suggested enforcement activities could establish an inspection process to ensure codes and guidelines are being followed. Compliance would be essential to be eligible for post disaster funding. Insurance rates need to act as an incentive for mitigation measures taken by individuals, corporations, and governments. Availability, cost and levels of insurance coverage would also be an indicator of risk awareness, of individual responsibility and of decreased dependence on public disaster relief.

Governance and accountability

The NDMS needs to be on the national agenda, generating public and political will for disaster mitigation. The governance and accountability structure is seen as playing a seminal role in this. The following key issues were raised:

1. The governance structure should ensure national co-ordination, not central control. Accountability and decision-making should be linked to appropriate levels of authority throughout all levels of government and the community.
2. Local and regional authorities should participate in the governance of the NDMS. Lines of communications should be established and supported.
3. Notwithstanding jurisdictional issues, the direct participation of large urban centres presents a special consideration for the governance of the NDMS.

1. National Co-ordination, Not Central Control

National co-ordination should not equate with central control. Financial accountability and decision-making should be linked to the appropriate levels of authority throughout all levels of government and the community. Dispute resolution mechanisms should be in place to deal with cross-jurisdictional issues.

Numerous ideas of possible structures were raised in discussions. There is no clear consensus emerging on the type of national co-ordination structure but there is a clear consensus on the need for one operating under the broad principles already presented. Suggestions of possible structures went across the full spectrum. Some examples were:

• membership of the national Federal Provincial Territorial NDMS Advisory Group should include all levels of government, the private sector, First Nations and other stakeholders with sub-bodies at the regional level;
• a national multi-agency entity be established to oversee mitigation implementation;
• a National Committee be set up that operates independently of government.

Some believe there is no need for a new structure that focuses solely on disaster mitigation, since emergency management structures could also take on the mandate of mitigation.

Every workshop mentioned the idea of a Centre for Excellence on Risk Management, a central body with sectoral links, or a network of Centres for Excellence. National leadership could be expressed through a NDMS national council, supported (in principle and with resources) by the federal government, which would connect expertise in the field to the governance structure.

Despite all the possible permutations of a governance model, participants were clear that the NDMS need not wait for the "perfect" structure. Rather action should start now. A governance model may need to evolve more slowly.

2. Local and Regional Authority

Stakeholders repeatedly stated that those closest to the situation could best handle mitigation efforts. Governance should be shared among all levels of government, absolutely including local authorities. Lines of communication should be established and supported and levels of responsibility, authority and accountability of national, regional, provincial and local actors should be clearly defined. Public accountability should flow through regular reporting and communication.

3. Direct Participation of Large Urban Centres

The direct participation of large urban areas should be provided for in the planning and implementation of the NDMS. Some stakeholders believe that legislative change or provincial agreement will be required to establish direct federal-municipal relationships and that possible legal impediments to cooperation should not hinder the NDMS.

Outstanding issues

In addition to governance, the following issues remained without clear resolution. Some of these outstanding issues point to difficulties that may arise in the implementation of principles or key elements identified during the workshops.

1. The parameters of future citizen engagement in the NDMS remain unclear. Issues of transparency in policy decision-making, national security and public safety are in the balance.
2. The cultural shift expected from the NDMS is in direct opposition to the prevailing culture of short-term gain.
3. The recurring debate in Canadian society balancing private interests and public good appears in the NDMS around proprietary rights and for-profit research.
4. The true nature of partnership is questioned, in terms of leadership and co-ordination and the financial implications of the NDMS.
5. Issues of territory and jurisdictions are seen as potential stumbling blocks.

1. Parameters of Citizen Engagement

The future expectations and parameters of citizen engagement and involvement remain unclear. Will citizens participate in consultations? Will they have direct input into the NDMS? Will they play a role or participate in policy and implementation decisions? Stakeholders recognize that levels of citizen engagement will vary according to the mitigation issue raised and will not be the same at all times, on all questions.

Citizen engagement could be a delicate balance between issues of public safety and national security (e.g., risk and vulnerability assessments of strategic infrastructure) and an open, transparent and participative public process.

2. Culture of Short-term Gain

We live in a culture of short-term gain, where immediate gratification shapes many personal and public decisions. The balance between short-term gain and long-term investment and the balance of personal, private, and public interests will undoubtedly pose a challenge to the NDMS planners and implementers.

3. Private Interest and Public Good

Links between industry and research raised fears for some stakeholders that research might become industry based. Some stakeholders clearly stated that information should not be used for profit. It was also recognized that private sector mitigation practices, research and information are often cutting edge and should be accessible to the public realm.

4. True Nature of Partnership

Issues around the true nature of partnerships and collaboration were raised, in terms of the exercise of leadership and decision-making, spending priorities and resource allocation. Resources for the NDMS – financial and human – are key. "Partnership" cannot become a synonym for "downloading".

5. Jurisdictions

Issues of territory and jurisdiction are seen as potential stumbling blocks – a key one being the direct participation of cities in the NDMS. Stakeholders were clearly action- oriented and repeatedly stated that jurisdictional boundaries should not impede NDMS or its actions.

Conclusion

Goodwill and trust surrounding the NDMS is a tangible and valuable asset. The workshops were carried out in a noticeably constructive and positive environment. Trust was impressively high amongst stakeholders who wish to see the existing momentum translate into tangible results in a timely fashion. The level of interest is high across sectors, as evidenced by the quality of input from the diversity of participants in the workshops. Stakeholders wished for a stronger presence of municipal authorities. Outreach and information dissemination are still required.

Across Canada, stakeholders who participated in the workshops generated many ideas and valuable insights. There were regional variations, reflecting characteristic outlooks and dynamics within the Canadian context and the predominant disaster risk in the region. However, the degree of consensus on the way forward for a NDMS is quite high, with many variations on a theme being raised, but few fundamental clashes of views. Overall, participants look forward to a NDMS that is iterative, holistic, integrated and inclusive.

Date modified:

2015-12-22