National Risk Profile Methodology

The National Risk Profile uses two evidence-based methodologies to assess Canada's current level of risk to all-hazards and inform our collective ability to mitigate their impacts: the All-Hazards Risk Assessment methodology and the Emergency Management Capability Assessment methodology.

The National Risk Profile risk and capability assessments are conducted separately but directly inform each other.

Using a driving analogy, risk assessment is the process by which Canadians perceive hazards and threats on the road ahead – the deer running across the road, the snow causing a lack of traction, and so on. Capability assessment is the understanding of how to steer, to brake, to accelerate, to wear our seatbelts, and not drive where we know the conditions are poor. It is the effort by which we become better at doing those things, understanding that we can broadly apply these capabilities to reduce risk across Canada's diverse hazardscape. It is the understanding and continuous improvement of the people, structures, and things that allow us to avoid, or more safely absorb, the risks we face.

To capture a national perspective on hazard risk, the National Risk Profile gathers disaster evidence from stakeholders across Canada who participate in risk assessments sessions. Stakeholders include representatives of federal departments and agencies, provinces and territories, municipalities, Indigenous organizations and communities, and the academic, private, volunteer, and non-governmental sectors. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit representatives and organizations are invited to participate in the risk assessment sessions.

All-Hazards Risk Assessment Methodology

The All-Hazards Risk Assessment methodology (AHRA) is based on international standards and was tailored for the National Risk Profile. It assesses the impact and likelihood of all-hazards that pose a threat to Canada using scenarios to assess risk impacts. This informs efforts to reduce the vulnerability of people, property, the environment and the economy. The AHRA methodology involves the following steps:

• Setting the Context – Threats and hazards that could impact Canada are identified.
• Risk Identification – Risk scenarios are prepared, describing cause and consequence.
• Risk Analysis – Defining the probability and severity of consequences to estimate risk.
• Risk Evaluation – Collectively, these risk estimates represent a picture of "all-hazards" risk.
• Risk Treatment – Identifying and recommending risk control or risk treatment options, particularly through the application of Capability-Based Planning.

Scenario Development Process

The AHRA methodology uses a scenario-based approach to assess the impact and likelihood of hazard risk. Hypothetical scenarios were developed by federal and external hazard and emergency management experts. The scenarios, such as a Yukon earthquake scenario and a Quebec wildfire scenario, include short narrative descriptions accompanied by relevant data and information on outcomes to facilitate the assessment. Scenarios are selected to be representative of hazards across Canada, including in Indigenous, northern, and remote communities, and include disasters of different magnitudes. The process of scenario development follows the steps below:

Cost estimates are used to create a realistic, evidence-based frame to size scenarios. Specifically, Average Annualized Loss (AAL)—the expected loss caused by a hazard, per year and averaged over a set period of time—allows for a standardized comparison of the hazard scenarios. AAL, as a measure, is a practical way to compare impacts across different hazards and within a single hazard, e.g., a low frequency but high impact event can be easily compared with a high frequency medium impact event. The ability to compare hazards in a more standardized way to identify which events have the highest-risk impacts is a key benefit of the AHRA and helps determine where the greatest EM system changes are needed.

For each scenario, impacts on people, the economy, the environment, social function, and government are assessed. Participants are also asked to consider critical infrastructure, Gender Based Analysis plus, and “future lens” impacts. The “future lens” component, which takes into account current evidence, while considering risk drivers such as: climate change, population growth, urbanization and continued development in hazard areas, provides insight on how risk drivers evolve over time. The Future Lens component provides insight as to how risk levels are expected to evolve over a 30 year period.

For each impact category, participants engage in a facilitated discussion and vote to evaluate the near-term (within the next five years) risk of the hazard by order of magnitude, which refers to the level of severity, on a scale from ‘limited' to ‘catastrophic'. Likelihood ratings are assigned by hazard experts using historical data and are refined through facilitated discussions.

Emergency Management Capability Assessment Methodology

The National Risk Profile uses a capability-based planning (CBP) approach to identify and measure capabilities that are required to prevent or reduce the impact of hazards on communities, before, during and after events. This approach can help highlight if and where gaps exist within the emergency management system, and considers which resources may be more frequently called-upon by creating a common framework for measuring, coordinating, and mobilizing resources to optimize limited resources and personnel across all jurisdictions. Conducting capability assessments using the Emergency Management Capability Assessment Methodology (EM-CAM) reflects our CBP approach.

Capabilities are defined as categories or logical groupings of emergency management functions across the entire emergency management system and provide the building blocks for effective emergency management practices across all jurisdictions. These groupings include resources, tools and assets, personnel and organizational structures, including policies and procedures.

The capability assessments drew from the Canadian Core Capabilities List (CCCL), a list of 38 emergency management functions co-created with provinces and territories. The activities on the CCCL are grouped under the five priority areas of activity from the Emergency Management Strategy for Canada.

The five priority areas of the EM Strategy are:

• Priority 1: Enhance whole-of-society collaboration and governance to strengthen resilience
• Priority 2: Improve understanding of disaster risks in all sectors of society
• Priority 3: Increase focus on whole-of-society disaster prevention and mitigation activities
• Priority 4: Enhance disaster response capacity and coordination and foster the development of new capabilities
• Priority 5: Strengthen recovery efforts by building back better to minimize the impacts of future disasters

Capabilities have two sub-components:

• Capacity: the level or the degree to which a capability can be delivered to meet the expected need; and
• Competency: the extent to which skillsets and knowledge exists to support the professional delivery of a capability.

During engagement and coordination in the first round of the National Risk Profile, a survey including a preliminary list of applicable capabilities for each risk scenario was distributed to experts and stakeholders. It directed participants to review the list of capabilities and suggest additional capabilities for inclusion or exclusion. In the end, between 15 and 25 capabilities were chosen for each scenario.

Next, a second survey was distributed to participants that asked them to give a baseline assessment for each capability, keeping in mind three basic elements:

• people and organization;
• policies, processes, and practices; and
• infrastructure, technology, and tools.

For each capability, participants evaluated baseline capacity and the competency related to each of these three basic elements (using a Likert scale^{Footnote 1} from 0 – “no capability” to 5 – “strong capability”). For example, a score of 2 would indicate a serious shortfall, and could be due to a lack of staff and/or a lack of regular inspections on the physical infrastructure.

The second survey also asked participants to assess the target state of each capability using the same scale from 0 to 5 and to look at how the capability will evolve in the future through a future lens assessment. By comparing the baseline with the target scores, it was possible to identify the capability gap for each assessed capability.

To produce a report on risks and capabilities, the capability assessment findings were validated with whole-of-society participants. Then, results from both surveys were combined with the risk assessment results as well as other scientific data.

Date modified:

2024-01-24