UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Non structural flood mitigation in Canada : linking the resources of today with a strategy for tomorrow Slater, Alyson 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2000-0282.pdf [ 8.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089489.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089489-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089489-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089489-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089489-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089489-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089489-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089489-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089489.ris

Full Text

N O N S T R U C T U R A L F L O O D M I T I G A T I O N IN C A N A D A :  LINKING THE RESOURCES OF TODAY WITH A STRATEGY FOR TOMORROW By ALYSON SLATER B.A., McGill University, 1996 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Resource Management and Environmental Studies We accept this degree as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January 2000 © Alyson Slater, 2000  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or by his  or her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  l^tSOUrU  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  f\.C\  frCKY\  Ccf~ CKr\A tV\ ^\™^m£>v  Abstract Flooding poses one of the greatest natural hazard dangers to Canadians. As human populations increase and concentrate in areas vulnerable to floods, and uncertainty about future flood risk increases with the possibility of a changing climate, major urban communities, coastal settlements and communities located within floodplains are faced with an even greater risk of floods in the coming years. Canada's policies and practices towards flood control are best described as ad hoc, and have developed over the years in response to experiences with floods. No national scale flood damage reduction program exists, and there is currently no opportunity for Canadian homeowners to purchase flood insurance. This study specifically examines how a national mitigation strategy, focused mainly on non structural techniques could help decrease damages from floods in Canadian communities. The strategy proposed here is theoretically based in EPC and IBC suggestions for a greater national mitigation strategy, as well as IDNDR research, and federal, provincial and municipal goals for sustainable development and sound land use planning objectives. Ideally, a successful non structural flood mitigation strategy for Canada would address issues at the national scale, yet be implementable at the local level in accordance with community needs, risk characteristics, and local expertise. The strategy proposed here would maximize the efficiency of federal resources and private industry as well as allow local expertise and existing mitigation schemes to be formalized, bolstered and improved. There are three major components of the non structural flood mitigation strategy. Risk avoidance measures such as early warning systems, land use and resource planning and ecological conservation all work towards reducing the chances of a dangerous flood occurring. Risk spreading measures help communities deal with flood risks by improving equity and accountability, they include tax incentives, disaster financial assistance, and flood insurance. Lastly, vulnerability reduction measures help reduce damages if a flood were to strike, and these include enforcement of building codes and the maintenance of existing protective infrastructure. An integrated, non structural flood mitigation strategy would require basin-wide cooperation between all levels of government, citizens and the private sector. This strategy is also an opportunity for communities and individuals to meet goals of environmental conservation and sustainable development. The focus in this study lies on the mitigation tools, although it is the overall process of inserting the premise of mitigation into all land use and planning decision making processes that will be the key to successful flood mitigation strategies in Canadian communities.  ii  Table of Contents Abstract  ii  Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures  iii vi vi;  Acknowledgements  vii'  1.  2.  Introduction 1.1 What is Mitigation? 1.2 How Does Mitigation Fit In With Overall Disaster Management ? Risk and Vulnerability 2.1 Risk and Hazard 2.1.1 Disaster 2.1.2 Risk Assessment and Management 2.2 Vulnerability 2.2.1 Increased Vulnerability 2.2.2 Vulnerability Assessments  3.0 Floods 3.1 Floods as a Hazard 3.2 Flood Risk in Canada 3.3 Increased Risk and Vulnerability 3.3.1 Climate Change 3.3.2 Population Increase in Vulnerable Areas 3.3.3 Economic Growth 3.3.4 Outcome 4.  Canadian Policies and Practices for Flood Mitigation 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4  The "Problem" of Insurance Policy Problem Flood Policy and Practice in Canada: A Patchwork of Responsibility Illustrative Example: Patchwork in the Lower Fraser  1 2 2 5 5 7 8 9 9 11 13 13 15 17 20 21 24 26 27 29 31 33 38  iii  5. The Theoretical Basis of Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation  45  5.1 International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction  45  5.2 EPC and IBC Collaboration for a National Mitigation Strategy 5.2.1 Development of Safer Communities 5.2.2 Establishment of Working Partnerships 5.2.3 Enhancement of Government and Industry Action 5.2.4 Encouragement of Public Participation  48 50 51 52 53  5.3 Sustainable Development and Flood Mitigation 5.3.1 Federal Agencies and Sustainable Development 5.3.2 Provincial Agencies and Sustainable Development: British Columbia  54 55 57  5.4 Framework for Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation 5.4.1 Themes 5.4.2 Principles 5.4.3 Goals 5.4.4 Objectives  58 58 60 63 64  6. Components of an Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation Program for Canada's Vulnerable Communities 67 6.1 Drawbacks of Using Only Structural Solutions  68  6.2 Risk Avoidance Measures 6.2.1 Early Warning Systems 6.2.2 Land Use and Resource Planning 6.2.3 Ecological Solutions  72 72 75 78  6.3 Risk Spreading Measures 6.3.1 Tax Incentives 6.3.2 Disaster Financial Assistance 6.3.3 Flood Insurance  80 80 81 83  6.4 Vulnerability Reduction Measures 6.4.1 Building Codes 6.4.2 Maintenance of Existing Protective Infrastructure  85 86 90  6.5 Summary of Proposed Toolkit  93  iv  7. Implementation 7.1 Establishment of a Planning Process for Flood Mitigation 7.2 Understanding the Decision Making Process of Key Stakeholders  8.  95 96 97  7.3 Strategies for Successful Implementation 7.3.1 Cost Benefit Analysis of a Non Structural Integrated Approach 7.3.2 Disaster Resistant Communities  98 99 101  7.4 Reality Check: Feedback from Decision Makers 7.4.1 The Private Insurance Industry 7.4.2 Municipal Stakeholders  104 104 105  Summary and Recommendations  109  Bibliography  112  Appendix 1: Responsibilities for Flood Management in the Lower Fraser Appendix 2: Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World Appendix 3: List of Acronyms  120 129 132  v  List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table  1: Holistic Risk and Vulnerability Assessments 2: Most Costly Natural Disasters in Canada 3: Population Change in Major Fraser Valley Municipal Centres, 1991-1996 4: Provincial Disaster Expenditure:Guidelines for Federal Sharing Eligibility 5: Framework for Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation 6: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Toolkit  12 18 23 36 65 93  List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  1: Disaster Adaptation Cycle 2: Positive and Negative Resource Creation 3: Federal DFA Payouts 1975-1998 4: Worldwide Total Costs from Great Natural Disasters 5: Changes in Disaster Types 6: Population and Weather Related Disasters in Canada 7: Insured Losses From Weather Related Disasters 8: Downs' Issue Attention Model 9: The Fraser River Basin 10: The Fraser River and Surrounding Municipalities 11: Feedback Loop: Development and Floodworks 12: Map of The Grand River Basin 13: Typical Cost Benefit Analysis  3 7 17 ...19 20 22 25 28 39 39 69 79 101  Acknowledgements I could never have accomplished a project of this magnitude without the help and support of many fantastic people. First and foremost to my Parents, who told me to 'just keep on climbing the mountain'. I thank you for all of your help and understanding in the summating of this mountain, for all my prior ascents, and for all the climbs I am sure to have in the future. Thanks also to Adam, Kate, Sue, and Sadie for always making the Slater household a wild and outrageous place to come home to. Dr. Les Lavkulich opened the door for an exceptional educational experience at UBC, I am grateful for the opportunity to have studied under his influence in the RMES program. Dr. Stewart Cohen was a mentor from the very first day until the very last. Thank you for sharing your incredible stores of knowledge and for providing the guidance essential to the completion of this project. Thanks also to Dr. Kathryn Harrison for stimulating lunch time conversations, and for broadening my way of thinking. Thank you to Nancy Dick for all her kind words and patience. There is not enough Ben & Jerry's ice cream in the world available to compensate David Bernard for his contribution to the completion of this project. I was first introduced to concepts of Resource Management and the usefulness of interdisciplinary studies by Dr. Thomas Meredith during my undergraduate degree at McGill University, for his influence I am thankful. Dr. Warwick Armstrong accompanied me through my first thesis at the undergraduate level, and I thank him for helping me develop the tools necessary for this project. I am grateful to all the people I have met in Geneva, Switzerland for their time, insight and expertise, especially the staff at the USD and the ICTSD. It is not clear whether ultimate Frisbee aided or delayed the completion of this project, but regardless I couldn't have managed without it! All the teams and tournaments over the years have left me with wonderful memories and friendships. 'Risty for two years of talks, Amy-0 for the race (I think you beat me), Nally for late night philosophy, Reba for the music, Dana and Masa for the Sugar, and to everyone else for making Vancouver the best place to live. To those who know me best and provided unwavering long distance support. Vera the best DTC I ever had, Sheila for a well-timed pep talk, Wylie-B for nothin', and Treez for the correspondence. And to Jason, my essential element.  vii  1.  Introduction  Flooding poses one of the greatest natural hazard dangers to Canadians. With population increases and uncertainty about future flood risks associated with the possibility of a changing climate, major urban centres and communities located along river banks and in coastal zones will face an even greater risk in coming years. In light of these hazards, the objectives of this project are two fold. The first objective is to report on the methods and techniques that Canadian communities currently utilize to manage flood risks, and decide if this existing management scheme is adequate. The second objective is to present a national non structural flood mitigation proposal that would improve upon the current measures and fall within the context of International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, Emergency Preparedness Canada and The Insurance Bureau of Canada statements on mitigation, as well as the federal, provincial and municipal goals for sustainable development in the planning of land and resource use. Geography and demographics combine to create a very diverse set of flood risks in Canada. Floods threaten large urban centres and small coastal communities alike. These differences make it impossible to typify Canada's flood risk characteristics, or even categorize major similarities. Throughout this project it will be useful to demonstrate theoretical aspects by describing the situation in a region. The lower Fraser valley provides an illustrative example in instances where it can be shown how theory can be put into action. The flood risk and mitigation situation in the lower Fraser is by no means characteristic or typical of the risks faced in other regions of Canada, but it does provide a means to demonstrate certain aspects of the current policies and practices of flood control in Canada, and how these practices can be improved with the implementation of some of the mitigation tools presented in this project.  1  1.1  What is Mitigation?  The term mitigation describes any action which permanently eliminates or reduces the long term risk to life and property from natural or technological disasters, in this study the focus will be on floods. Actions are considered to be mitigative in nature as long as they have reduced the impact of floods, whether they were taken before, during or after an event. Opportunities to apply mitigation measures can be found anywhere that populations, infrastructure or economic activity are at risk of disruption or destruction from floods. Specifically which mitigation measures or strategies to implement will depend on what exactly is to be protected, the priorities set by those affected, and the resources available for action. The economic, social and political factors that influence the adoption of mitigation strategies are extremely complex.  Mitigation must take place under the constraints of budget  considerations, cultural norms, enforcement issues and the tendency to maintain the status quo. By embedding principles of sustainable development in any proposed mitigation strategy, and integrating non structural flood mitigation into land use and resource planning, it is more likely that communities will incorporate them. If mitigation can be sold as a strategy that reduces flood vulnerability, while at the same time providing a solution to other needs or priorities, such as ecological conservation, communities may find implementation more attractive.  1.2  How Does Mitigation Fit In With Overall Disaster Management ?  Mitigation strategies do not operate in a vacuum, they are a component of an overall approach to disaster management. Figure 1 below shows the relationship between human activities and natural disasters, and the influence both spheres can have upon one another. Humans have learned to adapt to the challenges of their physical surroundings. After a disaster occurs, we learn by experience about the types of impacts it can have on our communities and populations, and we take action to reduce our vulnerabilities. 2  Figure 1: Disaster Adaptation Cycle  Risk Vulnerability  Hazard  -Root Causes -Social Forces -Unsafe Conditions  -Severity -Probability  Disaster  Human Activity Response & Recovery  Preparedness Mitigation  Adapted from Etkin and White 1997. The top box in Figure 1 represents the risk of flood. It encompasses issues of vulnerability that are inherent in a communities location, socio economic conditions, and culture. Hazard is also found in the risk box, and in this case refers to the frequency and severity of flooding in a community. As mentioned, the occurrence of a disaster often sparks a range of human activity, all of which are also closely tied. Preparedness occurs before the onset of an event in order to brace the community for the impacts. Response and Recovery is an extremely important component of the cycle of response as it allows aid in all forms to be administered to a community in need. Response and Recovery efforts typically occur immediately following a flood. Canada has a very strong response and 3  recovery network in place for floods. Mitigation can occur at any time before, during or after a flood to help reduce negative impacts. Typically, following a disastrous flood response and recovery efforts will identify areas where vulnerability can be reduced, initiating follow up mitigative action. Mitigation then results in increased preparedness, and so the cycle continues. Just as risk can cause changes in human activity, mitigation can cause changes in risk levels. This project focuses on the need for Canadians to recognize that steps toward mitigation can be taken without the disaster phase occurring, as indicated by the arrows joining the risk box with the human activities box in Figure 1 . We do not need to wait for a disaster to occur before action is taken. Mitigation is about recognizing risks, identifying vulnerabilities and acting before a disaster strikes in order to remove or reduce the risk and impacts.  4  2.  Risk and Vulnerability  Generally, the term risk refers to potential losses associated with a triggering event, such as a flood, whereas vulnerability refers to the characteristics of the society or environment affected by the event that lead to losses or costs (Kunreuther et al 1999, p92). How a society or community views risk and vulnerability is a central factor in decision making regarding which mitigation actions to take, if any. Costs, along with levels of risk and vulnerability underlie flood plain and coastal zone policies, and are based on a long series of impacts and periodic adjustments based on what is learned during disaster events throughout the history of the community.  The assessment of risk and vulnerability is  important because it is tied directly to the decisions made to reduce social and environmental exposure to flood hazards and impacts. Ideally, everything that matters to a community (with regard to flood impacts) would be measured in terms of true costs, and these costs would serve as the basis for actions to reduce societal and environmental risks and vulnerabilities. In reality, not all costs are identified, measured or even measurable. In fact, the extent to which measures of costs do not incorporate important aspects of impacts may make the usefulness of decision making in advance of future events minimal. Solving cost related problems are addressed in Section 2.2.2, Table 1.  Nonetheless, understanding risks and vulnerabilities is an important step in recognizing the need for flood mitigation. A sound mitigation strategy cannot be created without the identification of the specific risks facing a community, in addition to the vulnerabilities located within the community. 2.1  Risk and Hazard  The terms 'risk' and 'hazard' are often used interchangeably in common language, and are closely related in definition. In risk assessment and management studies however, the terms refer to two very different aspects.  5  A hazard is a category of an event (such as a flood) which causes a threat to the life and safety of people, or the things that they value (Pearce 1993, p4). The probability that a hazard will occur refers to how frequently a particular hazard is expected to occur based mostly on historical data (Lave 1986, p29). For the purpose of this study, the term hazard will refer to natural hazards, and specifically to hydro meteorological events, although many other types of hazards do exist. Risk is the probability or chance of an event occurring in a particular area and is based both on historical data and predictions for future events (Pearce 1993, p4). Risk, or expected loss, can technically be defined as the sum of the products of each possible hazard and its probability of occurrence (Lave 1986, p29). A hazard is born when two spheres overlap, known as the natural world and the social world. In the natural world earth processes continually move over one another and cause extreme climatic and geophysical events, fairly independently of human activities. Similarly, a great portion of the social world exists and develops independent of major earth processes, especially in industrialized societies where we feel removed from such events in our day to day lives. When these two spheres interact resources are created, some we call positive and some we see as negative. Much effort is put toward managing positive resources such as fisheries and forests, but the goal of this study is to illustrate ways to best manage some of the negative resources that occur as a result of our interaction with nature. Extreme climatic and geophysical events occur often without posing any hazard, it is only when the social human sphere is transcended by these events that we can say we have created a hazard, or a negative resource. Even within the social sphere, an extreme event can be both a positive resource and a hazard at the same time. For example, a flood may destroy homes in a community but also bring vital nutrients and moisture to ecosystems and agricultural projects. "It is people who transform the environment into resources and hazards by using natural features for economic, social, and aesthetic purposes" (Burton, Kates and White 1993, p32) Following from this, it can be concluded that the hazard is the risk encountered by occupying a place subject to flooding. Section 3 of this study is dedicated to evaluating the extent to which 6  floods pose a hazard to Canadian people and resources.  Figure 2: Positive and Negative Resource Creation Earth  Resources  2.1.1 Disaster When does a hazard become a disaster? A disaster occurs when a vulnerable society is exposed to an extreme event.  An extreme event can be defined by its magnitude,  frequency, duration, aerial extent, speed of onset, spatial dispersion and temporal spacing. Each community has different vulnerabilities and abilities to cope with extreme events, thus they will each have different thresholds for disasters.  For example, a foot of snow  overnight in Vancouver would mean staying at home, whereas it would be business as usual in Quebec City.  Scale is also of great importance. What is disastrous at the  community level is not necessarily so defined at the provincial level, and a devastating regional event may not be disastrous on a national scale. There are many ways to define disaster, but for the purposes of this study, it can be generally concluded that a disaster has occurred when a community suffers loss of life and property beyond their ability to recover without the assistance from outside sources.  7  2.1.2  Risk Assessment  and  Management  Risk assessment is the determination of the likelihood of adverse affects associated with specific flooding impacts to the built, natural, economic and societal environment. A risk assessment is a systematic approach to organizing and analyzing scientific data for potentially hazardous activities or events that could cause risks under specified conditions. The goal of risk assessment is to arrive at a rough estimate of the expected loss, usually summarized in either physical units or monetary terms (Lave 1986, p32). Risk assessment is heavily criticized for its inability to portray proper risks, as many important factors are left out, or not accounted for accurately given the restrictions imposed by the available tools. However, even a crude estimate of the quantitative loss is useful in setting priorities for action. Risk management is the process by which the results of risk and vulnerability assessments are integrated with political, economic, and scientific information to arrive at policies and programs that will reduce future losses and deal with damage after it occurs (Lave 1986, p30). This process can involve various approaches to reducing vulnerability, including modifying the event itself where possible.  The alternatives which arise from risk  assessment and management studies are commonly grouped into two categories; regulatory (government actions) and non regulatory alternatives (voluntary standards). Difficulty arises when communities or decision makers attempt to choose which alternatives should be applied to best reduce risk and vulnerability in the most effective and efficient manner. Often times, a technique called decision analysis will be used in order make sense of the nature of the risk, the characteristics of each management option, and the expected outcomes of each option. By supplying communities with information on the nature of the risk (a flood in this case), and an array of options, the best solutions can be arrived upon and implemented by each community according to their needs, values and expertise. 8  2.2  Vulnerability  Vulnerability is defined by the number of people, the value of property, industry and resources, and areas of environmental concern which would be negatively impacted by an event (Pearce 1993, p4). The vulnerability level of a community is dependant upon factors outside the control of humans, as well as those well within our scope of control.  2.2.1 Increased Vulnerability A community's resilience to disaster is not static or constant, and is often hard to measure. Vulnerability increases and decreases as a reflection of the political and physical attributes of the community, or changes in surrounding communities. Knowing the ways in which community vulnerability can change is an important part of being prepared for potential disasters. Vermeiren (1993) categorized the many threats to community vulnerability into three distinct groupings; Site vulnerability, structural vulnerability and loss of natural protective systems. Vulnerability inherent in the location of the community or activity is known as site vulnerability, and incorporates some very basic zoning and community development decisions (Vermeiren 1993). For example, locating new development in hazard prone areas without installing protective measures is an obvious way to increase site vulnerability. In terms of flood risk, this occurs when decisions are made to locate new housing or industrial sites in flood plains or near coastal zones. The introduction of hazardous activities in proximity to developed areas is another way to cause an increase in site vulnerability. An example pertaining to flood risk would be when physical changes are made to flood diversion structures that would increase a community's exposure to flood risks. The inadequate provision of safe and affordable sites for settlement expansion in less hazardous areas can sometimes force development in less desirable and more hazardous areas (Vermeiren 1993). Often times, especially in flood plains, the section of the population that bears the greatest risk is often the group at the lower end of the 9  economic scale. The over concentration of development beyond disaster response or evacuation capacity is a problem facing most major urban centres in Canada, and along many coastlines. Development in these risk prone zones typically occurs rapidly, which causes structural flood proofing measures to become fast outdated. Structural vulnerability is defined as any weakness inherent in the structural characteristics of any infrastructure located in a hazardous place (Vermeiren 1993).  The use of  inadequate design and building standards is often the cause of much avoidable damage when a disaster eventually does occur. Even if a structure was built according to stringent building standards, it becomes vulnerable over time if it is not properly maintained. If there is a long period between disastrous events individuals responsible for the maintenance of buildings may forget or decide that upkeep is not financially prudent. One of the largest problems facing Canadian hazard zones is the insufficient capital investment in infrastructure in order to meet the growth demand. As alluded to above, communities are quickly outgrowing structural flood mitigation works. Such infrastructure rapidly becomes obsolete when the community or territory it was originally designed to protect changes so drastically in such a short period of time. The loss of natural protective systems causes increased vulnerability when the quality of landscape around the community changes and is degraded (Vermeiren 1993). These such vulnerabilities often magnify the effects of site and structural vulnerability. The loss of natural protective systems is especially dangerous in situations where flooding is a hazard, and is common around Canadian coastal zones, flood plains and urban centres. Deforestation in watershed areas causes increased run off and soil instability.  The  deforestation or destruction of wetlands, reef and dunes also change the balance of the water cycle and the absorptive capacity of soils and lands. In general the unsustainable use of natural resources is a main cause behind the increase in community vulnerability towards floods.  10  Climate change is adding an additional dimension to vulnerability issues. As anthropogenic carbon levels increase, climate patterns are beginning to change.  These changes  themselves are hard to predict, therefore knowing or predicting how these changes may impact the natural and human environments is very difficult. This in turn causes an element of uncertainty which inherently increases a community's vulnerability since risks become unknown or unexpected.  2.2.2 Vulnerability Assessments Vulnerability assessment is concerned with the qualitative or quantitative examination of the exposure of some component of society or the environment to flooding hazards. Vulnerability is dependant on space and time, as the location of an individual, structure, or ecosystem is critical to its safety at the time of a potentially disastrous event.  The  relationship between community development and vulnerability grows more complex over time as risk increases due to societal or natural pressures, as outlined in the section above. Vulnerability assessments are prone to the same criticism as risk assessments, in that it is sometimes difficult to assign value to certain items or intangibles, and that value judgements play a role in affecting the outcome of some assessments. Some studies have attempted to solve these problems by executing combined risk and vulnerability assessments, since the two are inextricably linked. A study by Kunreuther et al (1999) performed some breakthrough analysis of risk and vulnerability assessments for communities by examining detailed aspects of each community. Table 1 (below) is taken from the study, and illustrates how risk and vulnerability assessments were performed separately for social, health and safety issues, on business risk and vulnerability, and the vulnerability of natural resources and ecosystems to hazards. Detailed analyses on each category such as effects of income level, effects of age, skills and experience, and gender effects could also performed for the most comprehensive data possible.  11  By using this type of analysis a holistic picture could be painted for decision makers and community residents about the interrelationships between risk, vulnerability and hazard, and decisions could be made in a manner that would minimize negative feedback effects through the links. Information of this sort reduces the inaccuracy of purely quantitative estimated loss calculations, and increases the inclusion of all things that matter to a community whether they can be assigned an accurate value or not.  Table 1: Holistic Risk and Vulnerability Assessments Costs Category Built Environment  • •  Business Community Social, Health and Safety  Natural Resources and Ecosystems  Direct or Indirect Costs  Examples  • • • • • • • • •  Insured and uninsured property loss: residential, commercial, industrial buildings, building contents, communications and transportation infrastructure. Transportation stock: autos, trucks, rail cars, planes, boats, ships. Interruptions and failures: insured and uninsured. Transfer of benefits and income (two-way). Loss of human life. Psychological trauma. Disruption of social services. Safety (including preparation, mitigation and response). Loss of crops and forest resources. Short and long term environmental degradation. Temporary and permanent loss of ecosystem services.  Mostly direct  Mostly indirect Direct and indirect  Direct and indirect  Adapted from Kunreuther et al 1999.  12  3.0  Floods  Recall from the introduction that the objectives of this study were to outline the current way in which Canadians manage flood hazards, evaluate the status quo, and then make recommendations about how improvements can be made. Before we can understand how Canadians deal with flood hazards, firstly there must be an understanding about what floods are, and how they pose a risk to Canadians. This section begins by describing why floods are hazardous, what causes them, and then finally speculates on why floods have been increasing in Canada and around the world over the past two decades.  An  understanding of the risk and uncertainty associated with flooding risk in Canada, and how this risk has been changing will enhance the understanding of current flood management practices in Canada, and what can be done to improve upon them. 3.1  Floods as a Hazard  Of all the potential natural disasters facing human populations, floods currently pose the worst risk to human populations and settlements worldwide. Throughout history, floods have caused widespread physical damage and account for the highest total human deaths when compared to all other natural disasters (Munich Re 1998). Flooding is a natural step in the water cycle, and occurs seasonally when stream and river systems drain excess water from the surrounding land area. Floods result when natural drainage channels or human made facsimiles cannot convey all the water supplied to them, as a result excess water spills over the banks and inundates the surrounding areas (Watson et al, 1996). A drainage basin's size, shape, topography, vegetation cover and degree of development may determine whether a basin will flood or not. For example, heavy rain may not cause flooding in a natural area since infiltration, vegetation or gentle slope gradients may reduce the amount of runoff and keep it from reaching the drainage channel. Yet, this same event may cause extensive flooding in urban areas because of large impermeable surfaces that promote rapid rates of runoff and result in large quantities of water inundating urban drainage networks. Thus, many cities, whether they are located in flood plains or not are 13  prone to flooding, especially if their drainage systems are inadequate (Watson et al 1996) Seasonal flooding on a smaller scale is often anticipated by residents, and is rarely the cause of deaths or damage. It is the less frequent but more severe floods that overwhelm natural and human constructed defences that cause mass destruction. By measuring water discharge rates in addition to knowing the attributes of a drainage basin, the frequency and extent of these large flooding events can be calculated. In any given basin, the magnitude and volume of a flood with a return period of 100 years, or an annual exceedance probability of 1 %, is known simply as the 100 year flood. For instance, River X is expected to exceed its average annual flow and flood its banks to a specific elevation (Y) once every 100 years (Watson et al, 1996). In Canada any structural flood protection devices such as dams and dikes are typically built to withstand such water levels. Flood return rates can be calculated for any frequency, such as the 10 and 25 year flood levels, and even long term frequencies such as the 500 year flood can be calculated (annual exceedance rate of 0.2%). Such a flood would be devastating, but is considered to be so rare that infrastructural protection measures are not considered economically efficient, and are rarely adopted. Floods are the most significant natural hazard world wide because they are frequent, have rapid onset speeds, are long lasting relative to other natural disasters, can affect large areas and often cause extensive losses to property and life (Etkin, Brun and White 1997). The worst flood in recorded history took place in August 1931 along the Huang He River in China and killed an estimated 3.7 million people. The world's death toll from floods between 1966-1990 was 117 000, an average of 4 680 deaths per year (Munich Re 1998). The hazard or risk of flood for humans and human settlements is so high due to the concentration of people living and working in flood plains and urban centres. Historically, flood plains have been considered ideal agricultural land due to the rich alluvial soil located in the plain, and the seasonal natural irrigation provided by smaller flooding events. Thus, human settlements are often located in flood plain regions. In developed nations, where agriculture is not always the most important sector, flood plains are still highly populated 14  reflecting other uses of the water resource. For example, industrial developments use rivers as an energy source and for waste disposal, shipping or transportation along river systems are often a vital trade link to the coast or other settlements located up and downstream.  Additionally, land located close to water is often in high demand for  residential purposes and thus highly developed for its aesthetic and recreational qualities (Etkin, Brun and White 1997). Another area highly susceptible to flooding is coastal zones. Coastal flooding can occur at the mouth of the river as a result of flooding higher upstream, or as a result of inundation from ocean or lake water.  Coastal zone hydrology is often drastically altered with  development along the coast itself, but is compounded by changes which may have occurred higher upstream. In developed countries, coastal regions are often the most densely developed and populated areas. Coastal and waterfront properties are highly desirable, and in cities such as Miami, New York, Seattle and Vancouver, real estate values reflect this demand. 3.2  Flood Risk in Canada  Since 1970, the Canadian government has paid out nearly $800 million in disaster financial assistance for major flooding events across the country. This includes 12 major events across the provinces, and dozens of minor events (Latta 1998, p2). Figure 3 (below) illustrates that Quebec accounts for about 50% of the total assistance granted over the past 30 years for floods, Manitoba is second with about 15% of the total expenditure. The worst Canadian flood occurred in the summer of 1996 when the Saguenay River Valley in Quebec received 290 mm of rainfall in less than 36 hours. Luckily very few people died, but more than 1 billion dollars in total damage resulted (Etkin 1998).  15  The regions in Canada most susceptible to floods are all of southern Ontario and Quebec, the southern half of British Columbia, certain regions in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and most of the Maritimes. The main causes of flooding in Canada are spring ice jams, coastal storm surges, snow melt and heavy summer rainfall (Etkin 1998). The risk of flood increases as Canadians continue to populate and develop vulnerable flood plains and coastal areas. For example, a study by Lawford et al showed that in the drainage basin which contains the sprawling city of Toronto, major urban development has caused what was originally calculated as the 100 year flood in 1960 to become a 60 year event as of 1990 (in White and Etkin 1997). Increased population in risky areas, increased development and impermeable surfaces, increased property value and climate change have all been cited as reasons behind the drastic increase in flood hazards and frequency in Canada (Baker 1998, p456). Lawford also outlined the total economic and social costs of flooding in his report. For example, $600 million per year is spent on building and upgrading drainage systems in the Toronto area, extrapolating this figure across Canada suggests that approximately $3-5 billion is spent per year on storm sewers and other drainage networks nationwide. The cost of prevention in addition to the actual losses suffered from flood events renders flooding one of the most significant hazards facing Canadians.  16  Figure 3: Federal DFA Payouts 1975-1998  QUE MAN ALTA BC NB c  NFLD  |  SASK  OL  NS YT PEI NWT ONT 50  100  150  Payout (millions $)  (Latta 1998)  3.3 Increased Risk and Vulnerability Once it is certain that a population is at risk for floods, it is important to know frequencies and severities in order to take proper precautions. Table 2 (below) lists major Canadian catastrophes, and shows that Canada has suffered increasingly large numbers of disasters. Canada has suffered 21 catastrophes with costs greater than $100 million (corrected to 1989 dollars) since 1950. 10 of these have occurred since 1991. Disaster Financial Assistance (DFA) is provided by federal, provincial, territorial, and occasionally municipal governments.  Since the 1960's, DFA payouts averaged $82 million per decade for  weather related disasters, and were dominated by flood events.  17  Table 2: Most Costly Natural Disasters in Canada Economic Impact (1989 CAD)  Year Disaster  Region  1936 1950 1961 1979 1981 1984 1985 1985 1987 1987 1988 1991 1993 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998  $514 million (wheat) All Provinces Southern Manitoba $125.5 million $668 million (wheat) Prairies $2.5 billion Prairies $100 million Calgary, Alberta Western Provinces $1 billion $300 million British Columbia $100 million Barrie, Ontario $229 million Montreal, Quebec $300 million Edmonton, Alberta $5.8 billion Prairies, Ontario $450 million Calgary, Alberta Winnipeg, Manitoba $175 million $100 million Alberta and BC $122 million Saskatchewan Saguenay, Quebec $1 billion $175 million Calgary, Alberta Winnipeg, Manitoba $105 million Red River, Manitoba $300 million $200 million British Columbia Ontario and Quebec $1-2 billion Adapted from Etkin 1998, p46.  Drought Flood Drought Drought Hail Storm Drought Forest Fires Tornado Flood Tornado Drought Hail Storm Flood Flood Forest Fires Flood Hail Storm Hail Storm Flood Winter Storms Ice Storm  In 1995-1996 payouts amounted to $135 million, and settlements are still being negotiated and finalized for the Saguenay flood, the Red River flood of 1997, and the Ice Storm. It is thought that the payouts for these events will far exceed the $135 million paid out in 1995 ( E P C 1999).  Canada seems to be fitting in with the global trend, as Figure 4 below illustrates. Disasters have increased, and the projections through the millennium are not encouraging. The figure logs both insured and uninsured losses. It is interesting to note that prior to 1988 there had never been a single catastrophic event that cost more than 1 billion U S dollars in insured losses.  Between 1988 and 1996 there were 15 such events world wide.  Although it is not contained in this figure, it should be noted that in industrialized nations deaths due to natural disasters have decreased and socio-economic impacts have 18  increased. Whereas in lesser industrialized nations both death rates and socio-economic impacts continue to rise (Munich Re 1998). Figure 4: Worldwide Total Costs from Great Natural Disasters  c  o  80 60 40  V) Z)  20  1  0 B-nmniniii, mm-TO-l. ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  Year (Adapted from Munich Re 1998) Explaining these trends is complex. There are many possible influences, such as changing weather patterns resulting in more frequent and severe storms; an anomalous period in the climate pattern; more thorough disaster reporting; and societal vulnerability changes. From the data in Figure 4 it is clear that damages from natural disasters are definitely on the rise in Canada and globally. This is likely due to a complex interrelationship between several factors, namely climate change, demographic changes and economic growth.  These  areas are large and complex spheres, and explaining how they react together to change our societal susceptibility to natural hazards is very difficult. However, it will be useful to address each factor in turn in order to shed light on the changes which are leaving us more vulnerable to natural disasters than we ever have been historically.  19  3.3.1  Climate Change  There is much uncertainty and speculation about how increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere emitted anthropogenically is presently or will in the future affect our climate. It has been generally accepted by the scientific community that global warming will result from increased carbon emissions, and that the global climate, composed of means and averages over several decades, will begin to change, and it may have already started. These changes may also affect what we know about extreme events. Although a change in mean climate (such as temperature or precipitation) can be hazardous in the sense that it represents a change from what society has adapted itself to, it seems likely that the greatest impact of climate change will be due to increases or decreases in the frequency of extreme events. Figure 5 shows an increase in hydrometeorological events globally, such as flooding, tropical storms and drought, however geological hazards such as earthquakes have remained relatively constant over the same 30 year span.  Figure 5: Changes in Disaster Types  Floods Tropical Storms Droughst Earthquakes  1963-67  1968-72  1973-77  1978-82  1983-87  1988-92  Year  (Munich Re 1998)  20  General Circulation Models (GCM's) are used by scientists to predict how changing atmospheric conditions may impact our climate. GCM's provide a useful glimpse at what future climate may be like in the presence of increased carbon dioxide, however they cannot provide meaningful quantitative estimations of how extreme rainfall events may change (Etkin, Brun and White 1997, p4). Additionally, there are limitations associated with estimating what the GCM data for precipitation may mean for flood risks around the world. Regardless, GCM's are a useful tool for considering the range of possibilities of future climate scenarios, and how the changing flooding risk may unfold for Canadians. Gordon et al (1992), Norda and Tokiaoka (1989) and Hansen et al (1988) used GCM's to estimate the changes in precipitation patterns North America may expect to see in a carbon dioxide doubling scenario. All three studies found: •  Increase in convective rainfall events;  •  Decrease in non-convective events;  •  Increase in frequency of large rainfall events, but decreasing return rates  •  Decrease in frequency of light rainfall days  More convective events will result in increased variability in climate, which in turn suggests potentially large changes in the probability of extreme events. Although it is hard to draw conclusions about what these changes will mean with certainty for flood risk, it would be wise to adapt the precautionary principle and assume that they must directly contribute to an increase in floods. 3.3.2 Population Increase in Vulnerable Areas The population of Canada has been growing at a steady annual rate of 7.9%, and as of the 1996 census there were 29 million Canadians (Statistics Canada 1999). 80% of the population lives in the southernmost reaches of the nation, hence extreme events which occur in the north do not typically affect Canadian safety or property. However, the high concentration of people increases vulnerabilities in other ways. 75% of the Canadian population live in cities, thus concentrating people and assets, so when a disaster strikes, 21  a high number of people will be affected even if it is a very localized event. High density of populations in vulnerable areas results in more pressures on natural ecosystems, and more damage when disasters do strike. Figure 6 shows an alarming correlation between population increases and the number of natural disasters. Population levels reflect counts taken at the beginning of each decade.  Figure 6: Population and Weather Related Disasters in Canada  •D  C to  Population Disasters  (White and Etkin 1998) Figure 6 shows a marked increase in disasters starting in approximately 1960, and the gap between the population and disaster rates continued to diverge until about 1980, until it almost doubled. The rates seem to have reached a plateau, but time will only tell. Why the divergence occurred can only be speculated upon. It is likely a reflection of increased population densities, better weather and damages reporting, and economic growth in Canada. The risk of local flooding in Canada is highest in those areas with rapid development, and farmlands are at risk when new development and roadwork has changed dams, dikes, drainage ditches and re-routed culverts. The lower Fraser delta provides an illustrative example. From Table 3 we can see that cities located along the lower Fraser River have been growing at a rate faster than the rest of both British Columbia and Canada. 50% of 22  British Columbians live in the lower Fraser delta, and many more work or travel through these areas on a daily basis. The demand for urban development in British Columbia has been so rapid that settlement still continues in unprotected flood prone areas, or settlement is fast outgrowing outdated structural protection mechanisms (Marshall 1996, p8). The vulnerability of these municipalities grows as every new development occurs. The number of people currently at risk exceeds one million.  Table 3: Population Change in Major Fraser Valley Municipal Centres, 1991-1996. City/Municipality  1991 Population  1996 Population  Percent Increase  Hope  5 728  6 247  9.1  Chilliwack  49 531  60 186  21.5  Abbotsford  86 928  105 403  21.3  Langley  19 765  22 523  14.0  Surrey  245 173  304 477  24.2  Coquitlam  84 021  101 820  21.2  Burnaby  158 858  179 209  12.8  Delta  88 978  95 411  7.2  Richmond  126 624  148 867  17.6  Vancouver  471 844  514 008  8.9  Total Average Percent Increase Fraser Basin 1991-1996  15.8  Total Average Percent Increase in BC 1991-1996 .  13.5  Total Average Percent Increase in Canada 1991-1996  5.7 Source: Statistics Canada 1999.  Demographic factors can impact the financial consequences of an extreme event. For example, in California where separate earthquake insurance policies are available, research shows that the propensity to purchase earthquake insurance increases with age and wealth.  In California the age distribution is skewed toward baby boomers,  consequently more of the population is likely to have insurance and will make a claim after an event. Whereas in other nations a greater proportion of the risk is likely to born by 23  governments or aid agencies since individuals would have no other recourse. Canada's population demographics are similar to that of California's, and although flood insurance is not available, this older and more economically secure and stable population certainly has more to lose in terms of valuable property and business investments. 3.3.3 Economic Growth Economic growth in Canada is closely tied to population growth, and although some provinces have prospered more than others, the overall average growth rate stands at 3 % per annum (Statistics Canada 1999). Canada, in comparison to the rest of the world is a wealthy nation, people have time and money to invest in material goods and infrastructure. We can afford to pay for certain protections from hazards and we have much freedom in choosing where to live. Consequently, wealthy populations live in high concentrations, sometimes in very high risk zones. Canadians are able to purchase insurance against some hazards, and have the luxury of a democracy with a strong social safety net which provides support in the case of a catastrophe all these things, however, tend to change and increase the sociological impact of disasters. Currently, Canada's most devastating potential natural hazard is an earthquake in the lower mainland. Recall from Table 3 that BC's population has increased by 14% over the last decade (double the national rate) and that urbanization has been occurring at the second fastest rate in the country, almost 3 % over the last decade. The estimated price tag for a major earthquake currently stands at a staggering $30 billion, a full one third of the provinces total GDP (Munich Re et al 1992). It has been estimated that this loss would cause an economic shock 10 times greater than the last recession, and that only a very small percentage of this disaster would be covered by insurance. This study reveals that demographic and economic factors can combine to pose a devastating risk for British Columbia, and for Canada.  24  The insurance industry in Canada is thriving as many Canadian homeowners and business owners require coverage in order to take risks they could not otherwise. From Figure 7 it is clear that the insurance industry has reported some frightening figures over the last decade in terms of natural disasters, it is clear that the numbers and costs of claims are increasing.  Figure 7: Insured Losses From Weather Related Disasters  1983  1988  1993  1998  Year (Baker 1998, p36) Between 1983 and 1989 there were 9 catastrophic events totalling $425 million in insurance payouts. Between 1990-1997 there were 41 events totalling $2.15 billion (Baker 1998, p36). The January 1998 ice storm has generated $1.4 billion worth of claims, over three times as large as the previous worst event. The active involvement of the insurance industry in natural disasters has changed the allocation of risk. Some of the risk that was previously on the shoulders of the federal government has been absorbed by the private sector as people are able to afford insurance and own increasingly valuable assets located in increasingly dangerous zones. This reallocation of responsibility is good in terms of use of taxpayer dollars (i.e. less disaster assistance is needed), but when a huge event strikes, shocks can be felt throughout the economy nationally or even internationally as insurance companies struggle to retain solvency (Flavin 1997, 10). This is just another example of how socio-economic changes can affect, and also be affected by the impact of natural disasters. 25  3.3.4  Outcome  Disasters tend to trigger a host of human activity such as preparedness, mitigation and response and recovery.  In the aftermath of a disaster, we take what we have learned  about the hazard and our vulnerability and make changes and adaptations in order to reduce the impact of future disasters. This is typical of the Canadian response to disasters where agencies or strategies are developed after the occurrence of a disaster and work to reduce our exposure for the next time. This has worked in the past, but there are difficulties with this approach in the future. The fact that societies vulnerabilities are changing is problematic, and is further compounded as the characteristics of hazards also begin to vary. This leaves us illprepared to deal with new hazards or common hazards which will begin to occur with greater intensity or frequency if we rely on our traditional wait and see reactionary strategies. This type of reactionary response has been referred to as the natural disaster game, where all the rules have been established over time, and are well known, so all possible actions have been taken in order to improve our chance of winning (prevention and mitigation), so that if we are hit with a disaster we have response and recovery plans in place (Etkin, Vazquez and Kelman 1998, p14). But there is evidence to indicate that the rules of the game are changing, and our knowledge cannot be based solely on past trends. Suddenly we find our communities left exposed and vulnerable. Canadian practice and policy for flood mitigation has sprung up in an ad hoc manner over time as we have participated in the natural disaster game. These policies and practices will be developed in the next section.  26  4.  Canadian Policies and Practices for Flood Mitigation  The first three sections of this document have provided the background knowledge essential to creating a better understanding of the flood risk in Canada, and how we may choose to manage them. We have defined mitigation, risk, hazard, vulnerability and outlined the physical and socio-economical threat that floods represent in Canada. The next step toward achieving the objectives laid out in the introduction is to examine 'where we have been' in Canada in terms of flood management practices, strategies and policies. This section describes why floods are difficult to manage and prepare for in terms of insurance and other intricate characteristics associated with flood risk. Section 4.3 outlines the way in which we have chosen to manage our flood risk in the past, and defines the 'patchwork of responsibility' which is prevalent in Canadian natural hazard management. Finally, the situation in the lower Fraser basin will be examined so as to provide an illustrative example of the complications, successes and failures associated with flood hazard management over the years. To borrow from Thomas Dye's oft quoted definition of public policy, it is simply "... whatever governments choose to do, or not to do (Dye 1978, p3)." Policy creation and implementation involves a process of research and evaluation, followed by a conscious decision that leads to deliberate action. Deliberate action can be defined as the passage of a law, the spending of government funds, and just as significantly, the decision not to act (Brooks 1998, p3). Many different factors can account for the policy decisions taken by a country, such as culture, socio-economic characteristics, political culture, and resource availability. When dealing specifically with flooding, the psychology of disasters also plays an important role in policy formulation. For example, individuals living in high risk zones may misperceive true risks, thus diminishing the demand for flood and disaster issues to emerge as an item on the political agenda (Etkin, Vazquez and Kelman 1998, p26). Also, studies show that in the United States there is a high degree of correlation between legislative action and 27  flood occurrence (White 1945, and Piatt 1979). Downs (1972) created a model to illustrate his findings about the way disaster prevention works its way on and off the political agenda (See Figure 8). According to Downs theory, in the Pre Problem Stage, the issue, for example flood mitigation expenditure, receives little or no attention since the problem does not seem eminent and cannot compete with other more topical issues. After the occurrence of a flood, the second stage of the model is reached. Due to political and/or citizen concern the issue is raised and is given much attention. As the decision making and research is carried out in response to the issue's presence on the agenda, it becomes clear that major costs would be associated with making improvements, and over time a gradual decline in public interest can be measured. The issue then rests in the post problem stage, where solutions are known but not implemented for various reasons, until the next flood occurs and the cycle is kicked into the alarmed discovery stage once again.  Figure 8: Downs' Issue Attention Model  (Adapted from Downs 1972, p41.)  28  4.1  The "Problem" of Insurance  Insurance is a tool which has come to dominate they way individuals and businesses manage their risks. An individual interested in insuring a risk can take out a policy with a company offering that specific type of insurance. The individual would substitute a small defined expenditure (known as a premium) for a large but uncertain future loss. The policy holder would pay a premium as calculated by the company based on actuarial science and the maximal probable loss the individual could sustain in a worst case scenario (Tierney and Braithwaite 1992, p29). This premium is entered into a capital pool which contains the premiums of other policy holders insured for the same risk. If a policy holder suffers a loss, they are reimbursed from the capital pool whereas those who escape losses essentially help to compensate those who have suffered via the premium they have already paid. Thus, insurance is a method of sharing the losses of the few individuals who suffer among the many in the group who do not (IIC 1979, p6 and IBC 1998). Insurers who wish to spread the risk further beyond their own assets purchase reinsurance from a reinsurer. Reinsurers may in turn choose to further spread their risk in a similar manner. In this way reinsurance can spread risks internationally, balancing losses across nations instead of allowing losses to remain concentrated within a specific population or local geographic area where the impact would be more severe (McNairn 1993, p64).  Not all risks can be covered by insurance. A risk must meet the following criteria in order to be considered insurable: • A relatively large population must be exposed to the risk. It is important that insurers have the ability to collect funds via premiums charged to their clients in order to build an adequate capital pool with which to fulfill policy obligations in the event of a worst case scenario. • A relatively small proportion of the exposed population is likely to incur a loss at any particular time. If the entire insured population were to suffer losses simultaneously, the capital pool would be drained and the company left unable to meet all policy obligations, with insolvency as a worse case scenario. Rarely would a capital pool be 29  large enough to cover the maximal probable loss for all policy holders at once. •  Losses must occur randomly. Although premiums are calculated based on historical frequencies of events, it is not known with certainty exactly when or how an event will occur. If such a risk probability could be known, no insurer would dare cover it as they would be certain to incur financial losses (Roth 1996, p10). Insurance companies profit on the gamble that the event will not occur.  Hence, there are some natural hazards which do not meet the requirements for insurance. Most insurance companies in Canada and the United States do not cover events such as snow slides, landslides, other mass movements, waves, weight of melting ice or snow, and most significantly, floods do not meet the basic underwriting requirements. As defined by the insurance industry, floods are a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land by any of the following: the overflow of inland or tidal waters; the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas; the collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding the cyclical levels which result in flood characteristics (FEMA 1999). The main problem rendering floods and landslides uninsurable violates all three underwriting rules, and is known as adverse selection. Adverse selection occurs when the individuals who have the greatest incentive to buy insurance are those that are exposed to the highest degree of risk with the highest expected losses (Roth 1996, p12). For example, only those living in flood plains and coastal zones would be interested in purchasing insurance, people living in places of high elevation or low rainfall would not have incentive to insure. Insuring only people living in flood plains or directly below a landslide prone slope means that a claim would be inevitable, and to offer coverage at affordable prices would no longer be actuarially sound. The capital pool would never accumulate sufficiently since all contributors would eventually make a claim, and depending 30  on the size of the insurance company and the geographical extent of the disaster, would likely do so after the same event. Insurance companies, through experience and planning have discovered that they cannot cover floods and remain profitable or even solvent. As a result, no Canadian homeowner is able to manage their flood or landslide risks using private insurance (Tierney and Braithwaite 1992, p176).  4.2  Policy Problem  The lack of insurance availability from the private sector leaves the onus on the government to provide for the only source of recovery funding for victims and their property. In most other instances, including disasters caused by winds, ice, and earthquakes, risk sharing between the public and private sectors is more evenly distributed, and the financial responsibility can be shared when a disaster strikes. Without the participation of the insurance industry in disasters involving floods, individuals are left rather exposed and vulnerable to a serious risk. Disaster financial assistance from the government is not a guaranteed right in Canada and is awarded according to a formula outlined later in this section. Grants or loans may be awarded at some point after the disaster, or help may come in other form such as army dispatches or volunteer aid from organizations such as the Red Cross. Floods, although inevitable, are unpredictable and typically cause extraordinary damage. Citizens that live and work in flood plains or risky coastal zones are fully exposed to the risks of floods since they cannot use insurance. Although not a legal requirement or constitutional right, governments are often obliged to grant disaster financial assistance to victims after a catastrophe. People are then able to repair their homes and workplaces, possibly with additional structural devices so as to lessen damage the next time floods arrive, and the cycle continues. This cycle poses a difficult and multi-faceted policy question for governments. Disaster financial assistance comes from tax reserves, since disasters are unpredictable they are also typically not budgeted for correctly, and may increase the deficit or tie up funds originally ear marked for other projects. In Canada, this 31  situation arose during the 1998 ice storm in Quebec and Ontario. Just months before the onset of the storm, a press release was published by Emergency Preparedness Canada which stated that a billion dollar storm event in Canada was virtually impossible. To date, the ice storm has cost approximately $2 billion, only 30% of which was covered by private insurance (Kovacs 1998). In addition to the difficulties of coming up with billions of dollars in a short period of time, governments may find challenges in other areas. Taxpayers who do not live in risky flood zones may object to their dollars being spent to facilitate the perpetuation of a cycle of disaster. Flood victims may never recover to their pre-flood situation since the government cannot guarantee sufficient funds and as a result entire communities may suffer from economic and social depression in the long term (White 1961, Etkin, Brun and White 1997). Assistance for victims may come in the form of donated aid (i.e. the provision of essentials such as food, water, shelter) or in labour provided by the military or other volunteers. In nations such as the United States and Canada, this may seem unacceptable to a population accustomed to a stronger social safety net. In sum, governments must decide how to provide for victims without creating an incentive for potential victims to live in high risk zones in order to collect disaster financial assistance, as well as meet budgetary constraints and the moral consensus of other taxpayers who may object either to the concept of disaster financial assistance or the prevalence of a thin social safety net.  Historically, Canada and the United States have suffered proportionately similar damages from floods, and have had to face similar policy questions. The outcome has been two very different approaches to flood mitigation and recovery. On the surface, this is somewhat surprising for several reasons; such as a propensity towards a high degree of policy sharing and learning between Canada and the United States, the existence of a similar flood risk, and the relatively similar socio-economic and cultural attributes shared by these neighbouring nations.  On the one hand, the United States has developed a highly  organized and extensive National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which has been bolstered by a myriad of regulations and laws, and has become the backbone for flood and 32  other disaster mitigation and prevention efforts, and sound land use planning around the nation. At the other end of the spectrum, Canada has historically maintained an ad hoc approach to flood disaster mitigation and recovery. Canada's response network is best described as a 'patchwork', and works on a local basis with communities according to need, but under no formally established guidelines specifically geared towards flooding.  4.3  Flood Policy and Practice in Canada: A Patchwork of Responsibility  Canadian flood policy has not been formalized or structured, and is generally characterized by a lack of policy attention. Canada instead relies on a long history of ad hoc approaches to disaster mitigation and relief. In fact, Canada has not yet developed either a national comprehensive formal policy statement or an integrated delivery structure at any government level for mitigation of natural hazards, although many federal departments and provincial ministries have their own programs to reduce the impacts of natural hazards. (Etkin, Vazquez and Kelman 1998, p24). Etkin suggests that Canada has not needed to develop such a policy structure since it has remained relatively disaster free when compared to the US or Mexico.  Canada does suffer similar losses from floods  (proportionally) as the United States. Canada has typically enjoyed a strong and extensive social safety net. The knowledge that the government can be relied upon to provide post disaster relief, both in terms of repairing infrastructure and providing financial relief may have resulted in a disincentive for individual mitigative action and the demand for alternative measures (Burton, Kates and White 1993, p168).  Canada's lack of co-ordinating policy does not mean the country is ill equipped to deal with flooding disasters. The existing policy is broad and includes measures for all possible emergencies in Canada, not just natural disasters or floods. Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) is a federal government organization within the Department of National Defence that plays a key role, on behalf of the Minister Responsible for Emergency Preparedness, in the development and maintenance of an appropriate level of civil emergency preparedness in Canada (Duguay 1998, p1). The current structure and 33  mandate of the EPC has evolved from a civil defence organization formed in 1948, through a series of different titles and formats. In 1959, the role of the EPC, then known as the Emergency Measures Organization (EMO), focused on the survival of civilian populations and on continuity of government in Canada in the event of a nuclear attack on North America. A 1966 Cabinet decision gave the EMO the additional responsibility of providing and coordinating the federal response to any peacetime disaster. The EMO was moved to the Privy Council Office in 1974 and renamed Emergency Planning Canada. In 1984, the Minister of National Defence was designated by Order in Council as Minister Responsible for Emergency Planning. In 1986 Emergency Planning Canada's name was officially changed to Emergency Preparedness Canada in order to better reflect its role (Duguay 1998, p6). In the 1992 budget, the government announced federal streamlining measures. Under these measures the EPC was transferred to its current organizational alignment as a unit of the Department of National Defence. The Emergency Preparedness Act was passed in 1988, and provides a statutory basis for effective civil emergency preparedness, and for cooperation between federal and provincial governments in this area. The Act made EPC a separate agency reporting to Parliament through the Minister Responsible for Emergency Preparedness.  The  Emergency  Preparedness Act enables the federal government to provide for the safety and security of Canadians during national emergencies, specifically public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war (Duguay 1998, p1). Canada's emergency preparedness system works on the following principles. First, it is up to the individual to know what risks they face and to know what to do in an emergency. If the individual is unable to cope, the different orders of government are expected to get involved and to respond progressively, as their capabilities and resources are needed. Local emergency response units are the first order to deal with emergencies, if they are overwhelmed they may seek assistance from the province or territory, which in turn may seek further assistance from the federal government if it is required.  The federal  government may become directly involved with disaster management if an event occurred 34  within federal jurisdiction such as the fisheries, national parks, navigable waterways and federal installations. It is the responsibility of each community and province or territory to have in place plans for dealing with the emergencies they may face. The EPC's main mandate is to help improve these plans and to facilitate dry runs and practices of the plans in order to insure they are sufficient to deal with the projected risks. This program is known as CANATEX, and also tests to ensure that all plans between levels of government are compatible. The Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP) is a joint federal and provincial program that works to mitigate losses from floods across the nation. Over the past 20 years this group has worked with 900 communities in high risk flood zones in an attempt to reduce loss of life, the financial burden of natural disasters, and the need for expensive structural flood control projects. They have an extensive database of flood systems in Canada, and have mapped most regions. Once the FDRP declares an area flood-prone, neither the federal or provincial government will build, approve or finance development, nor provide disaster assistance for any development built after the designation. Unfortunately, the staff and resources of the FDRP are limited, and most major urban centers, coastal zones and flood plain systems have not been assessed or integrated. Provincial and local governments have developed very localized policies and programs to deal with relevant risks in their regions. The result has been a wide variety of responses to similar disasters, reflecting the preponderance of provincial regulations tailored to local needs , capacities and resources. Often these plans and policies involve the mobilization of dozens of otherwise unrelated agencies, organizations, groups and individuals. Rodney White (1997) has coined this tendency for localized disaster response as Canada's 'patchwork of responsibility' and notes that although the policies have grown out of local needs and experiences, they are often undermined when partners in the patchwork take unilateral decisions which could negatively affect the others (White and Etkin 1997, p3). White also reports that the lack of harmonization between communities and provinces causes these policies to be unstable in the current era of federal reduction in spending on 35  disaster preparedness and relief, coupled with generally reduced provincial spending. These policies could fall through the cracks of an already fragmented patchwork of responsibility (White 1997, p 2). In 1970 the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program came into being and is still administered by EPC.  As stated, provinces are typically responsible for  emergency situations (such as floods) and under the DFAA program can appeal to the federal government for application of the cost sharing arrangement. If the application is accepted, the federal government will provide disaster financial assistance to a province when costs of a disaster exceed CDN$1 multiplied by the provincial population (Environment Canada 1974). Hence, the federal government only provides assistance for widespread disasters. In cases of extreme hardship, other agreements may be negotiated between the federal and provincial governments. In this sense, the DFAA only provides guidelines and is more ad hoc in nature. When disaster costs are between CDN$1-CDN$3 per provincial capita DFAA will pay for one half of the costs, if disaster costs are between CDN$3-CDN$5 per capita DFAA will cover three quarters of the cost, and finally if disaster costs are greater than CDN$5 per capita DFAA will cover 90% of the remainder (Environment Canada 1974). Table 4 below summarizes this information.  Table 4: Provincial Disaster Expenditure: Guidelines for Federal Sharing Eligibility Total Disaster Cost (per capita) Less than one dollar  Federal Shares (%) 0  Second and third dollars 50 Fourth and fifth dollars  75  Excess of five dollars  90 (Willis 1976, pg14)  5  36  Floods account for 80% of all disaster financial assistance payouts, and have averaged $82 million per year since 1970, although from 1995-1998 the DFAA will have paid out almost a billion dollars to cover losses from the Saguenay Flood, the Red River Flood and the Ice Storm (Etkin, Brun and White 1997, p46). Eligible costs are only those which were incurred by provinces during the immediate disaster period. Assistance is available for the restoration of essential property belonging to private individuals, and for the restoration of public works to pre disaster conditions. Limited assistance is also available to small businesses and farmers under certain circumstances. Provinces must estimate the extent of damage and submit an audit to the federal government in order to finalize cost sharing agreements.  As of July 1999,  negotiations were still underway between the province of Quebec and the federal government about the cost sharing arrangement after the Saguenay Flood, almost three years after the fact. Any costs which are recoverable by law or insurance are not eligible for cost sharing. This has special implications for flood disasters, since by default all damages will be eligible for reimbursement by public treasuries, assuming they qualify by exceeding the threshold of one dollar of aid expenditure per provincial capita. Many economic costs (and benefits) of flood damages then, are not calculated or reimbursed. This is an example of the typical equity disparities among those who bear the burden of costs, and those who receive the benefits. Generally, flood mitigation is carried out on the municipal and provincial levels by the enforcement of building codes and sound land use planning. Once a disaster strikes, a system of response and recovery is initiated, which is tailored to local needs and experiences and which has historically been quite successful in helping individuals, households and businesses to recover and regain their pre-disaster status. The federal government may only be involved well after a disaster when the total costs are known and 37  the province enters into negotiations for disaster financial assistance under the DFAA program guidelines. Provinces themselves also administer disaster financial assistance programs for the communities and municipalities that may require such assistance; most programs reflect a distribution formula similar to the federal program.  4.4  Illustrative Example: Patchwork in the Lower Fraser  Every community in Canada has a unique set of responses to choose from in the case of a flood. A closer look at the lower Fraser network illustrates the complexities of the ad hoc relationships characteristic of Canadian policies and practices. The Lower Fraser Region is a deep U-shaped valley carved by the Fraser River and its tributaries. It stretches from Hope, BC to the Pacific Ocean at which point it fans out into the Fraser delta. From a flood hazard management perspective, this area is the most complex region in the province, complicated by the highest population density levels (50% of the total provincial population), rapid urban development, and a concentration of farms and rural communities (Marshall 1996, p13). Conditions in the lower Fraser such as geography, landscape and climate provide a recipe for the threat of a large magnitude flood. Snowmelt in higher altitudes during the late spring and early summer are typically the cause of floods in the lower Fraser. Smaller and more frequent floods occur along the Fraser during winter rain storms, high tides and storm surges (Marshall 1996, p13). Dangerous conditions in the higher altitude tributaries occur when snow melt at higher elevations combines with fall and winter rainstorms. Flooding in the lower delta is also often caused by drainage system back ups, pumping station overloads, and the ineffectiveness of gravity drainage caused by high tides and high river levels. The last major flood occurred in 1948, and the worst flood on record happened in 1894, fortunately the region was sparsely populated and damages to human settlements were minimal. It is estimated that if the high waters of 1894 were to return to the lower Fraser, the dikes would be overtopped and damages would exceed $1.8 billion 38  Figure 8: The Fraser River Basin  Figure 9: The Fraser River and Surrounding Municipalities  (Day 1999) In communities along the Fraser with a long history of settlement, many residents still recall the impacts of the 1948 flood. In other communities, especially those strapped with rapid growth and high in and out migration, collective community memory of the past is nonexistent.  Community memory can have a significant impact on the decisions of local  government with respect to flood hazard management (Vaut 1974, p13). Fifty years is a long time especially in a rapidly growing region, as a result it is difficult to get flood mitigation onto the political agenda when the majority of the population was either too young to recall the devastation of the last event, or did not live in the region at the time and did not experience it. Flood hazard management in British Columbia, and specifically in the lower Fraser, is currently in a state of disarray. Financial restraints and cuts to programs and management bodies by the federal and provincial governments is a major contributor to the problem. In 1995 the Fraser River Flood Control Program (FRFCP) expired. After decades of operation funding for the program was not renewed, and as a result the major monitoring and unifying body in the lower Fraser was lost. Similarly, the British Columbia Flood Damage Reduction Program has suffered major cuts in finances and staffing since the mid 1990's. Federal contributions under the Federal-Provincial Floodplain Mapping Agreement for the Floodplain Mapping Program have been severely reduced over the same time frame, ironically at a time when the settlement landscape in the lower Fraser delta is changing most rapidly and floodplain maps would be most valuable. In sum, local, provincial and federal governments are unable to provide the funds required to sustain flood plain management programs, and lack the incentives and unity to renew funding for such projects (Marshall 1996, p9). The patchwork style of responsibility sharing typical in Canadian hazard management is embodied in the lower Fraser region. In an effort to clarify roles and responsibilities, the provincial government and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) signed a protocol agreement on Principles for Sharing Environmental Responsibilities in 1994. 40"  Under this agreement, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and UBCM recognized the need to clarify and define the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the provincial and local governments when addressing issues associated with environmental responsibilities (Marshall 1996, p9-10). In light of increasing fiscal restraints, the agreement specifically stated that both levels of government were to ensure adequate authority and financial capacity to fulfill their responsibilities (Marshall 1996, p10).  Unfortunately, this provision has not been met for  the maintenance of structural flood control measures. Local authorities and engineers are responsible for dike maintenance and must address flood hazards in the local land use planning processes, although in reality such governments have not been delegated or allowed such authority or are lacking sufficient resources which cause them to fall short of meeting their obligations under the 1994 agreement. This breakdown has resulted in an ambiguous mix of provincial and local responsibilities and assumptions, and a lack of direction and initiative in flood management in the lower Fraser. The federal government also participates in the management of flood hazards in the Fraser. Contributions have been made mainly to engineering works and response and recovery efforts since the 1960's. More recently, the federal government has contributed to the floodplain mapping program as administered by the FDRP. Additionally, the federal government has responsibilities relating to navigation, port facilities, and fish habitat within the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DIAND) has responsibilities related to First Nations property and activities located within floodplains. This diversity illustrates the number of political and jurisdictional boundaries flooding transcends. For a complete synopsis of all roles and responsibilities as related to flood management in the lower Fraser, from federal government departments to the individual citizen, see Appendix 1. MELP currently runs a Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP) in conjunction with the Provincial Ministry of Transportation (MOT). This program has historically focussed on structural mitigation measures, but recently has recognised the need for flood mitigation 41  to start at the community level with sound land use planning.  The flood hazard  management program administered by MELP has several components, including the Dam Safety Program, the Dike Inspection Program, and the Floodplain Mapping Program. The Mapping Program is a joint initiative between the BC and Federal governments aimed at identifying and mapping highly susceptible areas in the province. The affects of reduced funding has been reflected in the output that the mapping program has been able to publish in recent years. There are no maps for the lower Fraser region, the most recent maps of the Fraser are of Hope in 1988, Prince George 1997 and Quesnel 1990 (MELP 1999). The FHMP has managed to get flood mitigation on the political agenda and into provincial law books through land use planning. Legislation within the Land Title Act provides for provincial approval of the subdivisions of flood plain land, which allows more control of flood plain development. Specific amendments sponsored by the FHMP to the Municipal Act enables local governments to consider the impacts of flooding in their land use planning and management responsibilities, including the development of an Official Community Plan for floodplain land use, the issuance of building permits, and the adoption of approved floodplain building sites (MELP 1999). British Columbia has relied upon an array of structural floodworks to manage flood risks over the century.  According to the Dike Maintenance Act, a dike is defined as "an  embankment, wall, fill piling, pump, gate, floodbox, pipe, sluice, culvert, canal, ditch, drain or any other thing that is constructed, assembled or installed to prevent the flooding of land (MELP 1999)." Diking in British Columbia started as early as 1864. Today, there are 140 diking systems in British Columbia with a total length of over 1000 km protecting 120 000 hectares of valuable land. In the Lower Mainland area alone, over 50% of the population, together with $13 billion in development, are dependent on the integrity of 600 km of diking, 400 floodboxes and 100 pump stations (MELP 1999). Most dikes in the lower Fraser are built to the 1:200 year return rate. The diking systems in the lower Fraser are subject to the general dangers caused by seepage, erosion and overtopping, but face a serious threat from the possibility of an earthquake in the lower mainland as is predicted by geologists. 42  Currently there are 90 local authorities, diking districts and municipalities who own and operate public diking systems in British Columbia. Under common law and in accordance with pertinent legislation and/or agreements, responsibility for operation and maintenance (including inspection and emergency response) is vested with these organisations. Most operate and maintain diking systems along the same rivers or within the same flood plains without consultation or co operation amongst one another (MELP 1999, Marshall 1996, p24). To complicate the situation further, there are over 20 flood protection systems which do not have a responsible local authority. These have been touted 'orphan dikes' by the Fraser Basin Management Board (FBMB) and have been identified as an area where designated responsibility must be decided. In the meantime, inspection of these dikes is presently the responsibility of the Deputy Inspector of Dikes. Provincial responsibilities and general supervision relative to the construction and maintenance of dikes lies with the office of the Inspector of Dikes. The provincial Dike Safety Program is delivered through the Deputy Inspector of Dikes in each region. Activities include the approval of all works in and about dikes, joint inspections to monitor and audit the owner's dike management program and the ability to issue orders to protect public safety (MELP 1999). The Dike Maintenance Act is the legislative basis for operation and maintenance of public dikes in British Columbia. Other legislation relative to diking authorities in British Columbia include the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act and the Municipal Act which allows local governments to undertake diking and drainage through local bylaws and Improvement Districts. The Ministry is currently drafting new legislation, regulations and guidelines to consolidate the Dike Maintenance Act and the other legislation pertaining to dikes (MELP 1999). This is intended to standardise inspection requirements for local authorities and establish specific guidelines for dike maintenance.  43  The state of affairs in terms of effective and efficient flood hazard management in the Lower Fraser, although specifically unique to the region, is typical of the experience across Canada. Programs with the best of intentions begin but are never concluded, information falls through the patchwork, and citizens are left ill prepared. Canada does, however have some strong roots and programs in place to build on. The next section of this study will begin to outline a proposal for a national non structural flood mitigation strategy to unify Canadians in our struggle to protect ourselves, our property and our ecological assets against the onset of floods.  44  5. The Theoretical Basis of Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation As costs from recovery and response efforts in Canada and around the world increase, many agencies have started to look towards other options for disaster management. This chapter will look at different components and policy frameworks within which a national flood mitigation strategy would fit. Possibly the best source in the world for disaster management information is the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), and they have called for an emphasis on disaster mitigation for the future. A national mitigation strategy for Canada should take from the principles and recommendations as reported by the IDNDR. A national mitigation strategy for Canada must be instigated and endorsed by the two most important disaster management champions in Canada, EPC and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC). These groups have collaborated and have started to investigate the importance of a national mitigation strategy for all of Canada's disasters. The co-operation of municipal, provincial and federal governments and agencies is imperative if a national mitigation strategy is to be effectively designed and implemented. By creating a strategy that reflects major objectives of these levels of government, such as sustainability and sound land use management planning for future development, participation will be encouraged. This section will conclude with a closer examination of the principles of non structural flood mitigation, its goals and objectives, and an outline of the general framework.  5.1  International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction  Mounting losses in human casualties and property damage motivated the United Nations (UN) to declare the 1990's the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Floods were identified as one of the 10 specific disaster types to be focussed on. To conduct the IDNDR the UN established a secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland and a 25 member science and technology committee (STC). The UN called on member states to form national committees or designate focal points to coordinate national level activities geared towards reducing natural disasters and the impacts associated with such events. Over the decade, 45  IDNDR efforts have moved from mainly response and recovery plans, towards mitigation efforts. As the decade comes to a close, the goal or target for the IDNDR is for every nation to assess risks from natural hazards, complete mitigation plans and establish early warning and preparedness systems In 1994 the IDNDR issued the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World, the result of several years of research and input by non governmental organizations (NGOs), international organisations, scientists, business, industry and the media, and a series of international meetings. The Yokohama Strategy is a set of guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. As a member state, Canada should adhere to these guidelines when' establishing a national mitigation strategy for floods or for hazards in general. The following are selected aspects of the Yokohama Strategy which should be incorporated or should underlie the philosophy behind an integrated mitigation strategy in Canada. For the complete Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World see Appendix 2 (IDNDR 1999). 2. Disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and relief are four elements which contribute to and gain from the implementation of sustainable development policies. These elements, along with environmental protection and sustainable development, are closely interrelated. Therefore, nations should incorporate them in their development plans and ensure efficient follow up measures at the community, national, regional, sub regional, and international levels. 3. Disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness are better than disaster response in achieving the goals and objectives of the Decade. Disaster response alone is not sufficient, as it yields only temporary results at a very high cost. We have followed this limited approach for too long. This has been further demonstrated by the recent focus on response to complex emergencies which, although compelling, should not dived from pursuing a comprehensive approach. Prevention contributes to lasting improvement in safety and is essential to integrated disaster management. 4. The world is increasingly interdependent. All countries shall act in a new spirit of partnership to build a safer wodd based on common interests and shared responsibility to save human lives, since natural disasters do not respect borders. Regional and international co-operation will significantly enhance our ability to 46  achieve real progress in mitigating disasters through the transfer of technology and the sharing of information and joint disaster prevention and mitigation activities. Bilateral and multilateral assistance and financial resources should be mobilised to support these efforts. 5. The information, knowledge and some of the technology necessary to reduce the effects of natural disasters can be available in many cases at low cost and should be applied. Appropriate technology and data, with the corresponding training, should be made available to all freely and in a timely manner, particularly to developing countries. 6. Community involvement and their active participation should be encouraged in order to gain greater insight into the individual and collective perception of development and risk, and to have a clear understanding of the cultural and organisational characteristics of each society as well as of its behaviour and interactions with the physical and natural environment. This knowledge is of the utmost importance to determine those things which favour and hinder prevention and mitigation or encourage or limit the preservation of the environment for the development of future generations, and in order to find effective and efficient means to reduce the impact of disasters. 7. The adopted Yokohama Strategy and related Plan of Action for the rest of the Decade and beyond; c. Will develop and strengthen national capacities and capabilities and, where appropriate, national legislation for natural and other disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, including the mobilisation of non governmental organisations and participation of local communities; d. Will promote and strengthen sub regional, regional and international co operation in activities to prevent, reduce and mitigate natural and other disasters, with particular emphasis on: /. Human and institutional capacity-building and strengthening; ii. Technology sharing, the collection, the dissemination and the utilisation of information; iii. Mobilisation of resources. 10. Nations should view the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World as a call to action, individually and in concert with other nations, to implement policies and goals reaffirmed in Yokohama, and to use the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction as a catalyst for change.  The IDNDR is not the only international agency promoting disaster mitigation, although they are certainly the world authority. Other agencies promoting major mitigation research include (See Appendix 3 for full titles): OCHA, UNESCO, WMO, UNDP, WHO, UNCSD, 47  FCCC, The Convention on Desertification, and the Barbados Plan of Action for Sustainable Development of Small Island States. The original mandate for the IDNDR came to a conclusion during the winter of 1999. The frequency and intensity of natural disasters over the past few years prompted the United Nations Economic and Social Council to create a successor for the IDNDR. By spring 2000, it is expected that the newly founded International Strategy for Disaster Reduction will be fully functional. The main objective of the ISDR will be to enable communities to become resilient to natural hazards, and to proceed from an approach of protection against the hazard to the management of risk. The four main themes of action will be public awareness, communication and commitment by public authorities, creation of disaster resistant communities, and the reduction of socio-economic costs (IDNDR 1999).  5.2  EPC and IBC Collaboration for a National Mitigation Strategy  Recent disasters in Canada and North America prompted EPC and the IBC to pool their resources and investigate the usefulness of the formulation of a national mitigation strategy for Canada. EPC and the IBC jointly sponsored a symposium on mitigation in late 1997, the results of which are reported below. EPC and the IBC found that Canadian activities and legislation have focused on preparedness and response (as outlined in Section 4 of this study). As a result, these components have been well studied and developed, and many communities at risk have successfully implemented effective programs.  However, the costs of response and  recovery have been climbing astronomically over the past decade, and will continue to do so. Other options, such as mitigation, have historically not been developed as intensively in Canada due partly to the perception of complexity, lack of process direction, and the overwhelming potential costs associated with recovery and mitigation (Greene 1998, p1). The aim of the symposium was to present recommendations for the design, development and implementation of a national mitigation strategy for Canada. A non structural flood 48  mitigation strategy for Canada would be an important component of the overall national mitigation strategy as proposed by the IBC and EPC, hence, should reflect the goals and aspects as outlined in the symposiums findings. The symposium defined the term mitigation as "Sustained action to reduce the risk to life, property and the environment from hazards (Greene 1998, p3)." It was decided that a national mitigation strategy for Canada had its merits since their research showed that the increasing costs of disaster could be significantly reduced by investments in prevention and mitigation, and that such investments have proven to be beneficial when used in Canadian disaster management schemes by communities in the past. Symposium participants concluded that a continued focus solely on improved response efforts to alleviate the effects of disasters would have a diminishing return because of the limitations to significant improvements in that area, and more importantly because response measures are reactionary and do not address the need to reduce risk before a disaster strikes (Greene 1998 p12). DFA payouts on the scale that has been seen in the 1990's for disaster damage and reconstruction assistance is not sustainable and will place greater strains on all levels of the Canadian government, society and economy. In light of these factors, the symposium participants endorsed the design, development and implementation of a national mitigation strategy for Canada.  After deciding that a national mitigation strategy was required, the symposium reported its findings and preferences for the most appropriate principles and scope under which the design of a national mitigation strategy should be formed. The development of a non structural flood mitigation strategy for Canada is laid out in Section 6 of this report, and it follows these principles closely. Firstly, it was found that a national mitigation strategy should be seen by all stakeholders as "doable, actionable, tangible and relevant (Greene 1998, p13)." It should be based on the "think globally, act locally" premise, where there are national guidelines established, regional strategies developed, and local implementation encouraged. In order for such a 49  design as such to be successful, and implementation to be simplified, mitigation strategies and solutions to risk and hazard problems should be presented in a toolkit format (Greene 1998, p13). In this way, national resources and experience can combine to fill a toolkit with suggestions for risk reduction measures, and a community can pick and choose the measures that are most appropriate to their needs.  Ideally the toolkit will include layers  of strategy which include national, federal, provincial, regional, territorial, local and individual recommendations for actions. The national mitigation strategy would be based on a guiding but not prescribing principle, and implementation should be done at the community level, but within the greater picture on disaster reduction (Greene 1998, p13). In order for the national mitigation strategy to be widely accepted and successful, the symposium found that the strategy must be phased in gradually, should be evolutionary not revolutionary, innovative, marketable, and filtered through the media to support the design, development and implementation processes (Greene 1998, p15). The acceptance of such a strategy will be eased if the cycle of perception, awareness, education and action can be influenced at the local, provincial and national levels. Lastly, the symposium identified four major areas of action that a national mitigation strategy should incorporate. These are: developing safer communities, establishment of working  partnerships,  enhancement  encouragement of public participation.  of  industry  and  government  action, and  The recommendations from each of these four  areas provide great guidance for the development of a strategy geared specifically toward floods, and will be outlined below. 5.2.1  Development of Safer Communities  Mitigation and sustainability are inextricably linked. Taking action in the present can lead to future environmental and economic stability, and sound development in a community. Relieving risk in the short term, or reducing one area of risk only to increase another are not sustainable approaches to mitigation or disaster management. The implementation of 50  a national mitigation strategy is an opportunity to exercise sustainable improvements to all aspects of communities, not just in risk management areas. Principles of sustainability can be found in strategies to build safer and healthier communities, which also work towards reducing the individual and community exposure to risk. For existing communities, cost effective ways can be found to increase the resilience of structures and ecosystems before, during, and after a disaster occurs. Insurance can provide a set of incentives and disincentives to development and mitigation. Insurance reduces the cost of a disaster to an individual, and mitigation reduces the risk. Together these two forces can go along way to encourage implementation of mitigation strategies, and thus the reduction of risk. The symposium noted that insurance is not available for Canadians for floods, and stated that it is important that the government be involved in insurance in areas where it is not economically viable for private insurance companies to operate on their own (Greene 1998, p7). It is important to recognise that not all assets in a community are coverable by insurance or can even be assigned a monetary value, but it is one tool which can be used in unison with others. 5.2.2 Establishment of Working Partnerships The existing patchwork of responsibility in Canada is made up of important partnerships between a variety of stakeholders. Reinforcing existing partnerships as well as building new links between agencies currently involved in disaster management, and those that have historically not been involved but could potentially be very instrumental in future planning is an important aspect of mitigation. The symposium reported that partnerships provide the needed leverage for the acceptance and implementation of mitigation activities. Within the current patchwork in Canada, it is clear that no one group has the financial resources nor knowledge to make mitigation happen, co operation and co ordination are key elements to success.  51  The symposium participants recommend that useful multifaceted partnerships would occur at the local, community, industry, provincial, national and international levels with members of government,  non governmental organisations, academia, industry,  business,  communities and individuals playing a key role. The key function of partnerships is to better disseminate information, to more efficiently harness resources, and to collaborate without duplication (Greene 1998 p9-10).  A well managed, structured model for  partnerships with defined objectives and roles would do much to reduce the passing off of responsibility or to other partnership members, and increase accountability. An interesting and exciting recommendation by the symposium is to involve new members with disaster mitigation, such as environmental groups, social assistance groups and advocacy groups. Mitigation is an integrated and wide spanning approach to disaster management, and will require a rethinking of stakeholders. Partnerships with these groups will promote the use of knowledge and skills to achieve ends such as getting mitigation on the political agenda and changing the perceptions and culture of individuals towards hazards. 5.2.3 Enhancement of Government and Industry Action In order for mitigation to be successful, the community must look at its assets and tools as a whole, not as separate spheres. Individuals and businesses can combine their efforts to more effectively and efficiently implement mitigation measures. The members of the symposium envisioned a partnership between industry and government for the design, development and implementation of a national mitigation strategy in Canada. In this sort of relationship, government would work as a facilitator for action, while industry and professional associations would play a key role in promoting and enforcing action (Greene 1998, p9). The symposium predicted that the key to success would be to find champions from both the industry and government sectors who would sell mitigation as a series of projects that are linked under the umbrella of a higher objective of overall disaster reduction. Once several small and easier to implement projects have been successful,  52  these would in turn be used as models to show that further action would be both plausible and beneficial (Greene 1998, p9). Government mobilisation and action in the end will be the key to making mitigation work. Specifically, getting community level governments on board will be the most important step as they will provide the first level of response in a disaster, will be required to carry out all implementation and enforcement of strategies, and most importantly have the local knowledge of the risks and resources available. 5.2.4 Encouragement of Public Participation Ultimately, the most important players involved in disaster mitigation are the individual people who are exposed to risk either as citizens or as business operators. They will need to make decisions about implementation and mitigation if the plan is to be successful, and to do this they will need information. Education and awareness are a part of the public participation equation. Information needs to be shared and awareness heightened in order for the public to realize their risks and feel the need to do something about them. Public awareness alone will not lead to widespread implementation of mitigation measures, but instead a circular process involving public awareness and political will must be created. The mere creation of a mitigation mandate will not guarantee success unless action is taken by individuals, just as this action will be for nil if there is not continuing support by government to keep it on the agenda and continue to encourage implementation. In order to start this cycle, the symposium participants recommended that low cost, low participation solutions be initiated first, and then evolve these programs into higher participation ventures that are better able to compete for limited government time and finances (Greene 1998, p8). It is always difficult to predict whether people will participate in programs with voluntary measures. With industry participation and strong partnerships, programs can be designed 53  which will create incentives for public participation at both the individual and community level. Suggestions by the symposium included lending institutions to require insurance against a certain hazard prior to an approved loan, or insurance industry to scale premiums to perceived risk. It is assumed that such actions would keep mitigation alive in the public's mind, and would eventually grow into a change of culture towards the assimilation of mitigation (Greene 1998 p9).  5.3 Sustainable Development and Flood Mitigation Acts of nature are not inherently catastrophic, and most, like floods, are natural occurrences. Floods only become disasters with they conflict with people and property. Hence, the more human development located in high risk flood hazard areas, the more disastrous the consequences (CESDDP 1998). As outlined in Section 3.3.2, growth and development continues unabated in the riskiest areas such as in flood plains and along coastal regions. Communities located in these high risk regions are not sustainable because residents cannot count on the safety and security of the communities survival for generations to come. Principles of sustainable development can offer some of the most effective solutions for dealing with flood risks. Sustainable development, when applied to flood disaster risks, implies achieving disaster resistant human settlements with the prudent and resource efficient use of materials, at both the local and global levels (CESDDP 1998). By utilising an approach based in sustainable development, acts of nature can be prevented from becoming disasters to human communities. Some examples of sustainable solutions to managing flood risk include relocation, restricting new development in flood prone areas, elevating structures, and using stronger and smarter building design. These solutions, and others, will be developed and further explained in Section 6 below. As Canada continues to grow and develop, governments at all levels must make decisions about where development should best take place, and how to best manage and utilize natural resources. The principles of sustainable development have been recognized as essential components in deciding about the way we manage our growth and resources. 54  Mitigation is being recognized as an integral component of sustainable development (FEMA 1999). One of the basic assumptions of mitigation is to invest in preventative actions now, which will benefit humans and the environment in the long term. Sustainable development is the key to bridging the gap between social pressures, economic needs, public policy decisions and the carrying capacity of our environment. This is very relevant to the flood hazard in Canada, and may go a long way to assist in the development of effective mitigation strategies.  A national flood mitigation strategy will be more successful if it  enshrines principles of sustainable development, and it will certainly better fit into the overall goals that communities and governments have set for themselves in terms of increasing their use of sustainable development.  The standpoints from relevant  government agencies on sustainable development are presented below, and provide a framework for flood mitigation. 5.3.1 Federal Agencies and Sustainable  Development  The government of Canada has stated its commitment to making sustainable development a reality in Canada.  All federal departments are responsible for designing sustainable  development strategies to guide them in greening their policies, programs and operations. Each strategy will set out measurable results to be achieved and the progress will be monitored and reported publicly by the Federal Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development (Government of Canada 1999). Environment Canada (EC) was one of the first departments to complete and implement their sustainable development strategy. Goals and objectives outlined by Environment Canada in the strategy are the most applicable to flood mitigation of all the departments. Environment Canada's simply stated long term mission is to "foster a national capacity for sustainable development that will result in a safe and healthy environment and a sound and prosperous economy (Environment Canada 1997). A sound mitigation strategy would help achieve this mission in a sustainable manner.  55  The Environment Canada strategy also outlines a number of main themes which should be the building blocks of a national mitigation strategy. For example, equity is of great importance, the costs and benefits of human activity both presently and in the future should be shared and distributed fairly among people. One major problem with the current flood policy situation in Canada is that costs and benefits are unjustly distributed.  The  consequence of adapting remediation as opposed to a preventative approach to flood control has been to transfer the costs of future damages to two groups. First, landowners that unknowingly settled low lying areas on river banks. The second group are federal and provincial taxpayers who shell out costs for disaster financial assistance (Day 1999, p64). Co operation is another main theme, and allows for the widest possible team work to achieve common interests with differing capacities, capabilities and responsibilities. In order for mitigation to become a reality, co operation among traditional an non traditional partners must occur. Environment Canada also calls for policy integration and consistency, where environmental, social and economic signals should all point the same way. In terms of flood mitigation, this is important since incentives and enforcement must come from all sectors. The EC sustainable development strategy also calls for the use of the ecosystem approach, where "policies, programs and operations should be designed to consider the unique and fundamental characteristics of individual ecosystems and to recognize the interdependence of social, economic and environment systems (EC 1997). A mitigation strategy should be national in scale, but regional and local in focus, so as to incorporate unique local characteristics and resources. The EC strategy also promotes the precautionary principle, which is defined as the situation where threats of serious or irreversible damage occur, the lack of full scientific certainly shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation (EC 1997). The main hurdle blocking the path of mitigation implementation is the perception that floods will not occur, or that they will not be severe when they do, hence large expenditures against an uncertain risk are not easy to secure. The Strategy also recognizes the importance of environmental assessment as a tool for 56  increasing knowledge about our environment, and as a result better informing our decision making processes. Full information about the risks and vulnerabilities of floods are required for mitigation to make sense. One of the most important aspects of the EC strategy is its attempt to create links and partnerships with many other important groups. Direct links have been established with the Departments of Finance, Industry, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, Indian and Northern Affairs, Canadian Heritage, Health and Human Resources (EC 1997). These partnerships are important for the future of Canadian environmental policy, and the expertise provided by all the departments will be required in the development and implementation of a national mitigation strategy. Aside from the interdepartmental relationships, EC has made efforts to establish links with the business community, NGOs, and other governments at the municipal, provincial and international level (EC 1997). These links would be important in the development and implementation of a mitigation strategy.  In sum, an integrated  national non structural flood mitigation strategy is consistent with the federal government and specifically EC's goals on sustainable development, and would benefit from the ample resources available within EC and its partners.  5.3.2  Provincial Agencies and Sustainable Development: British Columbia  Although many ministries in BC have recognized the benefits of sustainable development, MELP is the key agency for expertise and resources for flood mitigation and sustainable development. The Ministry was created with the mandate to manage, protect and enhance BC's environment, including conservation and management of provincial fisheries, wildlife, water, land and air resources, and the management and allocation of Crown land and the protection and management of provincial parks, recreational areas and ecological reserves. Their overall vision is of an environment that is naturally diverse and healthy and enriches peoples lives (MELP 1999). Goals include the protection, conservation and restoration of a full range of biological and physical diversity native to BC, and the guarantee of clean, 57  healthy and safe land, air and water for all living things. An integrated national flood mitigation strategy would be consistent with these goals, and could be embraced by the ministry as means to achieve sustainable environmental goals. The ministry co-sponsors a flood hazard management program with the Ministry of Transportation and Hiways. This management program focuses heavily on structural mitigation, but recognizes the importance of land use planning. The relationships within this existing program are the building blocks of inter-ministerial cooperation. This type of cooperation is needed in order to develop and implement an integrated non structural flood mitigation strategy.  5.4  Framework for Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation  The standpoints presented by the IDNDR, EPC and IBC, and the different levels of government in Canada show that an integrated non structural flood mitigation strategy for Canada would be an appropriate way to reduce our losses and increase our preparedness. There are many challenges to developing a program of such magnitude and diversity. The biggest challenge will be to create a strategy national in scope, yet local in focus and implementation.  Outlined below are the themes which a Canadian strategy should  incorporate in order to allow it to be relevant, guiding principles, and finally the goals and objectives which will help the strategy become a reality in Canadian communities across the nation. This information is summarized at the end of this section in Table 5. 5.4.1 Themes  There are four main themes to be woven throughout a mitigation strategy that would encompass a nation. These themes help to identify and create specific solutions to flood mitigation.  58  Regional and Contextual: A region is defined by its physical, ecological, socioeconomic, cultural and institutional characteristics. A contextual approach would focus flood hazard management approaches on intimately related factors such as physical conditions, risk levels, growth levels and land use management. Designing a program keeping region and context in mind is important for flood hazards since floods are rarely super localized. The ecosystems of entire coastal regions and river flood plains must be examined in order for the bigger picture to be seen. Implementing flood mitigation strategies in a town is useless if a neighbouring town upstream is not abiding by mitigative efforts as well. Certainly local needs and differences within a region would be variable and need to be recognized, but due the nature floods, a slightly larger scale must be applied. Mitigation strategies must be applied in context of a region in order for them to be applicable and implementable with available resources.  Flexible and Adaptive: A flexible approach is integral when designing a strategy for Canada since there is such a diverse array of regions to which strategies will apply. A flexible approach will increase choices by increasing the availability of management tools. This will help to enable local communities and municipalities within regions to respond to local situations but still remain within the greater regional context. The balance of structural, non-structural and emergency response tools may vary from locality to locality, so the most cost-effective solutions must be tailor made for each community. An adaptive flood hazard management system ensures that the appropriate tools are available to match different needs, and also encourages research and innovation for solving unmet needs. Proactive and Preventive: Canada has developed a very strong reactive approach to flood risk management, which has been manifested in an extensive response and recovery program. If damages are to be reduced to any great extent, the efforts must instead become future oriented, proactive and preventive by anticipating flooding events and creating plans according to the level of risk involved. In order 59  to be proactive, it must be acknowledged that floods occur, and responsibility for decisions about living and developing in a risky region. In this sense, communities can avoid being caught merely reacting to a crisis, and losses, hardships and damages associated with the event can be minimized or avoided well before it even strikes.  Long term solutions are often more cost effective than short term  reactionary solutions. • Comprehensive and Integrative: Similar to the regional approach, a comprehensive approach broadens perspectives to provide the big picture view. One of the most difficult aspects of the flood mitigation strategy will be to organize and coordinate tasks and resources (such as people, funds and organizations). A comprehensive approach will help to provide cohesiveness to the patchwork of policies, programs, agencies and issues currently associated with flood mitigation in Canada, and those that will need to be created in order to fill in the gaps. By maintaining an integrative approach, a deeper understanding and perspective on the social, economic, environmental and cultural characteristics involved in flood hazard management on a local, regional and national scale. An integrated approach can also be defined as a multi-objective or multi-sectoral approach, and it must provide the means to understand the interrelationships and synergistic effects on policies and actions on the bigger picture. Complex and delicate interrelationships occur between agencies, governments, public and private sector activities, land and resource related activities, and administrative jurisdiction. This theme is definitely one of the most important, yet one of the most difficult to achieve, yet if it is successful, a comprehensive and integrative approach will yield the best results. 5.4.2 Principles The tools available for applying flood mitigation strategies will be based on, and designed to reflect some basic yet integral principles. These principles have been generated from the goals and objectives of the IDNDR, EPC and IBC, and the mandates on sustainable 60  development and environment. The following list has been adapted from several sources (Marshall 1996; Dorcey 1991; FEMA 1999, EPC 1999; Burby 1988 and McClain 1995). •  Floods are natural events.  Floods are dynamic and powerful aspects of the  hydrological cycle in rivers and coastal regions. Any strategy should recognize the different types of floods typical of particular regions, and their impacts and affects. A strategy should acknowledge and respect the natural hydrologic processes of the region, the risks associated with interacting within the region, and should operate within the boundaries of this natural system. •  Ecological functions of floodplains reduce flood risk. Floodplains and coastal regions are naturally equipped with the physical tools to deal with and reduce damage from floods. Flood hazard management strategies should be aimed towards reducing disruption of floodplain ecosystems whenever possible. Preexisting and planned structural flood hazard management works should include assessments of the cumulative and site specific environmental impacts of such infrastructure.  •  Flood hazards are related directly to land uses in the floodplain. The impact of floods on developed lands is obvious, but the relationship works the same in reverse. Developments can affect the extent and duration of floods by altering natural protection barriers such as vegetation cover, run off rates, in-stream sediment flow, water table levels and flood water storage areas.  Mitigation  strategies should recognize this two way relationship and address the natural and anthropocentric causes of flooding.  Strategies should work to coordinate  development and management with other agencies operating within the coastal zone or watershed to reduce human induced flooding, such as forests, fisheries, conservation and restoration projects.  61  Effective partnerships are key to the development and implementation of integrated flood hazard mitigation strategies. A partnership is an agreement formed around the accomplishment of a common goal. There may be many partners working independently towards to completion of the same goal, so by sharing resources, actions and decision making power, these goals can be more efficiently achieved. Formalized partnerships in flood hazard management would involve clearly defining the decision making and governance process, and the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders and players. The strategy should facilitate the development of partnerships between private, public and non profit sectors, and promote the collaboration and commitment between these parties. Lastly, the formation of partnerships  will promote the understanding  and integration  of social,  environmental economic and cultural interests.  Individuals and businesses located in high risk zones must take responsibility for their own safety and security. One of the main EPC mandates is that individuals are accountable for the risks associated with living in or near a high risk zone. It is up to the individual to do what they can to protect themselves and reduce their risks.  Mitigation strategies should foster this principle by increasing citizen  awareness, education and sense of responsibility towards flood risks. The public should be fully involved in decisions which affect their safety and accountability, and there should be fair and equitable sharing of the costs and benefits to living in a flood plain or coastal region susceptible to flooding. Governments have a responsibility to protect public safety and minimize flood losses for the greater public good. The government of Canada and its agencies are committed to alleviating human suffering and minimizing the social, economic and environmental losses caused by floods.  This can be achieved by  implementing strategies that promote the protection of human lives, property and natural resources; minimize the disruption of social and economic activities before, during or after a flood; emphasize preventative measures over reactive or 62  emergency measures; and encourages visionary planning by local levels of government while reducing costs to taxpayers in the long term. These principles encompass the physical and socio-economic aspects of flood zone management, and should act as a guide during the creation and development of mitigation strategies. 5.4.3 Goals Goals are general guidelines which explain what the community or region wants to achieve in terms of flood mitigation (McClain 1995, p31). Plans and actions based on clear goals are more likely to succeed in meeting the needs of communities.  Goals are best  formulated after the flooding hazard and vulnerability has been well defined and acknowledged within a community. Once goals have been clearly identified and ranked in order of importance or priority, specific objectives can be developed in order to achieve the stated goals. This section will outline goals for an integrated non-structural flood mitigation strategy for Canada at the national level. In accordance with the flexibility and regionality themes outlined above in section 5.4.1, communities will develop similar goals on a smaller scale, which will reflect the national goals, but will be directly relevant to the specific risks and characteristics of their region.  The three goals outlined below have been derived from the theoretical and philosophical basis for integrated non-structural flood mitigation as outlined earlier in this chapter. • To substantially increase public awareness of flood risk in such a manner that the public demands safer communities in which to live and work. • To significantly reduce the loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and the destruction of cultural and ecologic resources which occur as a result of floods.  63  • To obtain the full commitment and participation of public authorities and private citizens to reduce risks to people, their livelihoods, social and economic infrastructure and environmental resources. These goals will assist in keeping the actions and activities associated with the implementation of a national non-structural mitigation strategy focused consistent. 5.4.4  Objectives  Objectives follow directly from the stated goals of a national non structural flood mitigation strategy. Objectives are specifically defined actions or steps to implement in order to obtain the identified goals. In order to best achieve the stated goals, the objectives have been grouped into five distinct categories. •  Increase the understanding of flood risks and processes in coastal and floodplain regions.  Flood mitigation is impossible to achieve unless the risks and  vulnerabilities are well understood. There are many tools a community or region can utilize in order to better understand their risks, these are hazard identification, risk and vulnerability assessments, flood mapping, and climate change projections. •  Increase public education, awareness and communication. Mitigation strategies must be desired and developed by an educated public. Tools for increasing public education include training and education programs, early warning systems, technology  transfer and education, and the creating public forums for  communication, input, opinions and participation in the creation of disaster resistant communities. •  Create financial and legal strategies to protect people and infrastructure from flooding losses and to provide incentives for adapting mitigation strategies. The use of insurance and financial institutions as a means to increase public awareness and 64  enforce mitigation measures and compliance is a very powerful tool. Integrated and coordinated insurance programs, bolstered with support from the financial industry will create incentives, penalties and start to deal with the equity issues associated with hazard mitigation. •  Prepare the built environment. Take a proactive approach to strengthening existing infrastructure, and ensuring new developments will be equipped for the flood risk in the community. This can be achieved by enforcing and updating building codes, testing and investing in public infrastructure, and maintaining existing structural flood protection works.  •  Integrate mitigation into planning and management processes. Land use planning and natural resource management processes are the most powerful arena's for implementing mitigation strategies and avoiding new risks for future developments.  Each of these objectives are achievable using a variety of tools. Section 6 of this study will develop each of these areas in further detail, and present specific ways in which a community can use tools and resources effectively and efficiently to achieve their mitigation goals within the framework of themes and principles outlined for a national effort. For a summary of this section, please see Table 5 below.  Table 5: Framework for Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation THEMES  PRINCIPLES  GOALS  Regional and Contextual Flexible and Adaptive Proactive and Preventative Comprehensive and Integrative Floods are natural events Ecological functions of floodplains reduce risk Flood hazards and land uses are directly related Effective partnerships are necessary Individuals must take responsibility Governments must take responsibility Increase public awareness Decrease loss of life, property and ecological functions  65  Obtain commitment from public and private spheres to reduce risk OBJECTIVES Increase understanding of flood processes Increase public education about floods Create financial and legal strategies Prepare the built environment Integrate mitigation into planning and management  6.  Components of an Integrated Non Structural Flood Mitigation  Program for Canada's Vulnerable Communities This section builds on all previous chapters to propose a toolkit of non structural flood mitigation measures that together could form the backbone of a sound national integrated strategy to reduce flood vulnerabilities and damages. Section 5 above has provided the inspiration and the framework within which these action tools can be housed. As a result, most measures are applicable independently of one another so that communities can use the best tools available for their individual characteristics, and can incorporate mitigation into their other community planning ventures with greater ease. The value of a national mitigation strategy under these circumstances include information sharing across municipalities and provinces, and also the utilization of federal resources and expertise to implement programs that would not be feasible for individual communities to run, such as the insurance program. This section opens by examining in detail the downfalls of relying only on structural measures, which is the case in the Lower Fraser basin. The following three sections will then outline various measures which can be applied by communities to reduce their risk of floods. Flood mitigation can be defined as any action taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the long term risk to life and property from the risk of floods. Mitigation in Canada has typically been in the form of structural flood control devices. This infrastructure is an important part of the way flood risk is managed, but to rely on infrastructure alone would be detrimental, as outlined in section 6.1 below. Alternative flood hazard mitigation options have been divided into three categories, risk avoidance measures, risk spreading measures, and structural vulnerability reduction measures. The sections below will develop the individual tools available within each of these categories.  67  6.1 Drawbacks of Using Only Structural Solutions The trend in North America, and specifically in Canada, has been to manage the flood risks of communities by building extensive engineered structures to divert or in some other way physically protect human settlements. The 'structural era' began in the early 1900's in Canada, and throughout the century a complex infrastructure of dikes, dams and spillways have cropped up across the country. These devices are an integral part of the overall management of flood risk in Canada, except when relied on alone, they actually create a greater flood risk and major incentives not to actively reduce hazards. This section will discuss four major drawbacks associated with relying on structural mitigation devices without an accompanying integrated non structural strategy. One of the most complex and dangerous drawbacks of using structural devices alone to mitigate flood damages is that they create a moral hazard. Specifically, the potentiality or reality of structural flood protection measure in some way indirectly or directly encourages risk increasing activity (White 1961). The reliance on structural mechanisms to control floods essentially rewards those who face the highest risk of flooding. Typically, if damage in the region has been severe enough over time, structural protection will eventually be provided, which leaves residents oblivious to the smaller flooding events, and feeling safe from larger events. The simultaneous increase in federal expenditures on structural flood control measures and the level of damage from flood damage nationally is a relationship recognized by FEMA in the United States and EPC in Canada (FEMA 1999, EPC 1999, Vaut 1974 p2). Increased expenditure on structural control devices should result in savings from flood damage, but the exact opposite situation has proven itself time and time again since the 1960's (Vaut 1974, FEMA 1999). This relationship can be explained by the phenomena of moral hazard. There tends to be accelerated flood plain development behind the safety of flood control works. It is assumed that once flood protection measures have been built, it is safe for communities to develop new areas or more densely in the flood plain. These increasing 68  pressures on the ecosystem tend to overstress the flood control systems, and they are eventually rendered inadequate as protection devices since they are no longer protecting what they were originally designed for. The financing of flood protection with federal funds virtually assures potential flood plain developers of practically costless flood protection for their developments (Vaut 1974 p2, White 1961). This in turn, increases potential damages, and thus the cycle continues. Hence it can be illustrated that building structural flood control devices increases risky activity, such as dense flood plain development, and further demand for expensive infrastructure projects. The dependency on structural flood works creates a cycle of vulnerability which eventually increases flood risk. A structural approach provides only a short term 'band-aid' solution which does not address the root of the flooding problem. When protection is provided for new or existing developments, a false sense of security builds over time, and encourages further development. As a result the flood risk is augmented, and greater risks are assumed by the community. Figure 11 below shows the cyclical relationship between development, floodworks and risk. As the value of investment in flood prone regions increases, so does the pressure for flood protection works, especially after an event or the threat of a flood. In turn, the provision of flood control works accelerates demand for developable land in the region, and the original problem resurfaces with greater personal and property risks associated.  Figure 11: Feedback Loop: Development and Floodworks  Increased level of flood protection  Decrease in perceived risk level  Increased Development  69  In most cases in Canada, structural flood control measures have been built without the complimentary implementation of programs for flood plain management. If it were more common for development in flood prone areas (both protected and unprotected) to be controlled via non-structural measures, the effectiveness of the structural solutions would be amplified. The idea of moral hazard relates directly to the second drawback of relying on structural flood works alone. A misallocation of costs and benefits occurs, whereby society as a whole bears the cost of flood protection works and disaster financial assistance. Whereas the risk bearing individuals (i.e. Those living in the flood plain) primarily receive the benefits of such expenditure, and are encouraged to remain in the risky location. This relationship can be seen as the root of the problem with structural device dependence, along with factors such as increasing population, accelerating economies, and increased use of water ways for industry and tourism working simultaneously to further compound the risk (Vaut 1974, p3). The socio-economic and physical landscapes of coastal regions and flood plains in Canada change rapidly, as a result there becomes an inadequacy in the a priori estimation of project costs and flood damage prevention benefits. In Canada, flood damage benefits have typically been based on pre-project flood plain development levels and trends, not taking into consideration possible future development patterns or projections (EPC 1999). Once the structures are in place, there is rarely a correction made for increased damage potential which would result from project induced development occurring in the newly protected flood plain or coastal region. Unfortunately, it is often not until a disaster has occurred that it becomes acknowledged that protective works need to be refitted or reevaluated. In the large urban areas, such as the GVRD along the Fraser River and the Pacific Ocean, or Montreal along the Saint Lawrence River, it is often very difficult to complete accurate and complete studies of vulnerabilities due to the size, complexity and rate of growth. 70  Flood control measures also have an impact on the price of real estate in protected zones. Soule and Vaughn (1974) completed a study which examined the effect that new flood control projects had on property values inside the protected area in comparison to neighbouring adjacent regions just outside the protection zone. They observed market prices over time and concluded that the flood protection devices were responsible for a trend in post project property value acceleration (Soule and Vaughn 1974).  This study  reveals that the construction of flood control measures not only rewards residents of flood zones, but attracts new settlement into increasingly valuable properties. Both of these outcomes lead to increased economic and structural vulnerability in flood prone communities. A fourth and final drawback of structural development, is the inability to accurately assess actual project costs, due to the temporal gap between the project phase, the community development phase, and the disaster phase, coupled with the inability to attach costs to social desirability and value judgements. For example, assume flood protection was the stated goal of a certain structural development. Cost benefit analyses often include no explicit judgement of the social desirability of flood plain development made possible by the proposed project. As a result, it would seem that whenever some degree of uncertainty could be associated with the post project level of flood protection, or where such protection could be known with certainty to be less than 100%, any non-negative rate of flood plain development would count as an increase in potential damages, and would therefore become a project associated cost (Vaut 1974, p4; Hoyt and Langbein 1955). Cost benefit analyses will be explained further in the following chapter, but it is interesting to note that since such project associated costs would not be included in the cost benefit analysis, many proposed structures would have found to be economically viable and would have received building approval under false reasoning.  71  6.2 Risk Avoidance Measures The information contained in sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 is summarized in Table 6 at the conclusion of this section below. Risk avoidance measures refer to any actions which discourage location of settlements, infrastructure and economic activities in known hazardous areas. Risk avoidance also encompasses any action which attempts to reduce damages from floods by better preparing individuals and businesses which are already located in risky areas. 6.2.1  Early Warning Systems  Well planned early warning systems and effective information can provide much protection for lives and property against disaster. According to the IDNDR, successful early warning is a process composed of short, medium and long term warnings, combined with effective information gathering and interpretation (IDNDR 1999).  It is recommended that  communities and provinces invest in improving technologies that support warning systems, the dissemination of information, and the actions needed to respond to warnings. An example of a successful early warning network was illustrated in 1996 in the Winnipeg area when the Red River flooded is banks. Over the years prior to the Red River flood of 1996 a strong communication and information sharing network had developed among the communities located along the floodplain, stretching from northern Manitoba into the United States. The river flows south to north, so when waters began rising at the head of the river, Winnipeg authorities were able to receive technical and practical information from communities in the south several days before the high waters reached Manitoba. As a result, the risk was well known, and information could be communicated to those at risk about how to take action in order to avoid severe damages. The flood was still devastating to the region, however there were no lives lost, and damages were reduced drastically as a result of the residents preparedness. 72  The early warning system in Manitoba is dependant upon access to accurate and useful information. It is impossible to prepare for a disaster if the dangers and risks are unknown. The first step is a comprehensive analysis and forecasting system for the flood hazard (IDNDR 1999). This may consist of data collection about flow rates and stream levels over time, and closely monitoring of other influences on stream levels such as snow fall and melt, impermeable runoff rates and storm activity.  Mapping and modelling can help  interpret data and the possible threats of flood. Knowledge of the floodplain and stream characteristics fulfill only half of the equation. As mentioned earlier in this study, floods only become disasters if they interfere with the human socio-economic and infrastructural sphere. Data on what exactly is at risk in a community makes up the second half the information equation. The comprehension and understanding of the potential floods effects on communities will help analysts determine the true risk a change in stream flow may have on the community (IDNDR 1999). A final component to this information stage, is the combination of forecasting data with a pre-determined loss reduction plan for each community, reflecting the values and capabilities of the community (BOND 1998, p1946). The second stage of a successful early warning process is the political decision making process. Once information is known about the threat of a flood, the proper channels must exist to express it to decision makers. The information must be presented in a manner which is easily understandable and interpreted by decision makers. Useful disaster information networks are easily achievable with new communications systems, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that are able to integrate real time data with archival data to produce information for critical decision making. This stage is rounded out by an efficient and rapid decision making process that can then be transformed into action in a very short period of time. The third and final stage of disaster early warning processes is communication to the public, using both modern (telecommunication applications, remote sensing, radar, telemetry, broadcasting and other media, meteorology, and communications supporting 73  disaster logistics management) and traditional forms of communication such as public education and signage (IDNDR 1999, Cate 1994, pv). Communication technologies, skills and media are essential to link scientists, disaster mitigation specialists, government officials and the public. Warnings can be issued well before a flood occurs by a variety of means. There could be a requirement that real estate agents inform new or potential buyers of the risk they face due to their proximity to the flood plain (BOND 1998, p1946). Information and education campaigns can inform residents of risks through community meetings and flyers distribution. Many studies have been done over the past two decades about the importance of communications in disaster mitigation (see Cate 1994, Preface).  The 1994 World  Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction which produced the Yokohama Strategy (IDNDR 1994), also featured the Roundtable on Media, Scientific Information and Disasters. This Roundtable found that communications are essential in natural disaster mitigation since they "educate the public about preparedness; track approaching hazards; alert authorities; warn the people most likely to be affected; assess damage; collect information, supplies and other resources; coordinate rescue and relief efforts; account for missing people and motivate public; political and institutional responses (Cate 1994, p5)." One of the main findings of the Roundtable was that harnessing the power, knowledge, professionalism and experience of the media (TV, radio and print) and honing solid partnerships with members of the media was a key to disaster mitigation. Concise, accurate and informative instructions for disaster mitigation can be expressed by the media to the public prior to, or during the onset of a flood, and such messages are vital for informing residents exactly what their risks are, and what resources are available to them to reduce their risks. Each community has different risks, needs, response alternatives, and communication networks and abilities. Mitigation planners should ensure all three stages of the early warning system are in place, and should especially develop the communications networks which hold it all together. 74  6.2.2 Land Use and Resource Planning Land use planning and resource management are strategies utilized at the municipal and regional levels to ensure that communities are developed according to their goals and objectives while meeting the needs of their residents. According to the Province of British Columbia (1995) land use planning at the regional level occurs to promote socially, economically and environmentally healthy human settlements that make efficient use of public facilities, services, land and other resources. More specifically, community plans in BC typically address housing needs; commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, recreational and public utility land uses; sand and gravel extraction; restrictions on land use in hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas; road, sewer and water systems; and public facilities (Province of British Columbia 1979). Municipalities then pass regulations such as building, sub-division and zoning by-laws which regulate specific aspects of development. A component of land use planning, known as flood plain management, is potentially the most effective non structural food damage prevention measure available to communities. Flood plain management is defined as the use of government, police, and regulatory powers to control flood plain development. (Vaut 1974, p4). The general goal of flood plain management is to avoid the hazard in the first place by prohibiting through zoning the occupation of flood plains by structures susceptible to flood damage. As was discussed earlier in this report, the presence of structural flood control devices often create an incentive for development in perceived 'safe zones'.  Structural devices can be most  effectively utilized if complimentary land use planning strategies control or discourage unsafe development in these zones  by outright prohibiting such development, or  implementing other measures such as tax incentives, mandatory flood proofing, or the use of insurance. Flood plain management can be used to avoid destruction by floods, as well as to help implement other environmental or sustainable development related goals as a part of the greater land use management scheme in a given community (BOND 1999, p1945). For example, by leaving flood plains in their natural state, or by zoning them as 75  park space, the integrity of the ecosystem is preserved, hence achieving environmental improvement goals in addition to improving the safety and security of people and their property in the community. A study by Burby in 1998 revealed that few local or municipal governments are willing to adopt land use or flood plain management measures in order to protect against floods or other natural hazards unless they receive strong mandates from higher level governments. Burby speculated on the reasons why this trend seems to be so prevalent. Land use approaches to disaster reduction require accurate identification and assessments of areas affected by hazards, yet hazard zone mapping may be too expensive for municipalities to fund. Secondly, floods often span jurisdictional boundaries, which necessitates intermunicipal cooperation for the creation and development of land use planning strategies. This sort of cooperation, across municipal, provincial and even international boarders is difficult, especially when flood plains are large, or when neighbouring communities have different goals and values about the desired use of their available land. Lastly, Burby suggests that in order for land use planning initiatives to be implemented, the public must first find the threat of floods to be a credible risk, and be willing to invest time and money to take action. As was mentioned briefly earlier in this study, the psychology of disasters often plays an important role in the success or failure of disaster mitigation (Burby 1998). A closer look at the land use planning situation in the GVRD provides an illustrative example of the complexities involved in using flood plain management as a tool for flood mitigation. Unfortunately, the lower Fraser region perfectly exemplifies the relationship between structural flood defence projects and increased development. The region boasts an extensive array of flood works, however, development policies have been based on the notion that if dikes exist and the structure is 'flood proofed' it is acceptable to build in the flood plain. In addition to causing accelerated development behind flood structures, the BC policy that exempts new development from flood proofing behind dikes in historically settled areas have caused even more risk to people and infrastructure (Marshall 1996, p33). Since accompanying developing policies have not typically reflected objectives of 76  minimizing loss of life and property damage, the integrity of the structural protection in place has been diminished. A task force reporting to the Fraser Basin Management Board found several specific reasons to explain why land use management and flood plain management have not been effective tools for mitigating floods in the past. Responsibility for flood plain planning, regulation and enforcement between municipal and local governments has resulted in a lack of attention to the problem over time, and a lack of ability to take a proactive stance towards mitigating flood damages.  The Fraser River Basin transcends dozens of  jurisdictional boundaries, and planning and regulatory responses to the river and its hazards and resources differ accordingly. Provincial policies provide no guidance, as they apply to a limited range of hazards and offer very few flood proofing technique alternatives. Policies are not applied consistently, and do not recognize unique local conditions. This lack of clarity has resulted in continued and accelerated development behind flood works. Policies have not historically recognized the natural beneficial functions of flood plains, and the environmental benefits and functions of flood plains have not been clearly understood. There is a severe lack of current data and maps for the lower Fraser region flood hazard. This lack of information passes through the political realm and onto the citizens, who are thus often unaware of flood hazards and locations of floodplains (Marshall 1996, p34-35).  The future for flood plain management in BC should become boldly proactive towards reducing the risk of flood losses. In order to avoid a 'band aid' solution, new and updated policies and plans need to be broad in scope, and integrated into other land use planning initiatives such as promoting sustainable community development and environmental values. Although responsibilities need to be clarified, it is important that partnerships are strengthened between local, provincial, federal and First Nations governments. Coordination between jurisdictions in the Fraser Basin is essential if real progress is to be made. Homeowner understanding and participation can be achieved through education, incentives and public involvement, and is an important aspect of the planning and implementation stages. 77  6.2.3  Ecological  Solutions  Flood plains perform important hydrological and ecological functions.  When these  functions are disturbed by human settlement or landscape modification, often irreversible damage is done to the ecosystem, and the risk of flood increases. Valuing floodplains for their natural functions and recognizing their ecological significance when making land use decisions will not only preserve the integrity of the ecosystem, but reduce flood risk. This is a good arena in which to reinforce environmental and conservation initiatives and ethics. Flood hazard management policies which employ natural flood control systems are the most sustainable practices available for managing flood risk. These natural controls are achieved by maintaining vegetation cover to improve soil stability and absorption; preserving wetland, beach and estuarine ecosystems which will aid in excess water absorption; conserve natural flow courses and flow rates by limiting the use of fill in flood plain development and minimizing erosion and runoff; and finally the impacts from forestry, construction and other land clearing activities must be minimized. One of the first and longest standing examples of the use and success of ecological solutions to flooding problems is found on the banks of the Grand River in southwestern Ontario. The Grand River flows north to south for 300 kilometres and terminates in Lake Erie (See Figure 12). It is one of the largest basins in Ontario, encompassing 6965 square kilometres, and housing almost 800 000 people (Boyd, Smith and Veale 1999, p24). Settlement began in this large basin back in the 1800's. By the early twentieth century the combination of urban and rural settlement, deforestation and wetland drainage resulted in periodic flooding along with lengthened dry seasons where low water levels revealed untreated human waste in the river bed. By 1932 the river had been recognized as a health hazard due to its lack of sanitation, and a natural hazard due to the tendency towards more frequent and severe floods. By 1938 citizens along the Grand River banks joined forces in creating a basin wide initiative to solve the problems. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) implemented a wide range of structural and non structural solutions, with a great emphasis on ecological strategies. 78  Figure 12: Map of The Grand River Basin  (Boyd, Smith and Veale 1999)  In the 1950's and 1960's the G R C A reacquired and restored the forest cover of swamp areas, headwaters, and marginal to submarginal agricultural areas.  The annual tree  planting rate in these early years averaged 1 000 000, and this rate continued through to the mid 1980's. In the past 10 to 15 years the replanting rate has dropped to about 100 000 per year, and has been reinforced with an education program to promote forest protection, reforestation and informed forest management using community workshops and newsletters (Boyd, Smith and Veale 1999, p24). 79  Soil conservation advisory services also began in the Grand River basin back in the 1950's and 1960's, but was met with little success. A revived effort starting in 1985, carrying through to the present day, has focused on soil conservation on agricultural lands. The goals have been to reduce erosion and increase water course quality using new tillage practices, field storage reservoirs, grassed waterways and improved riparian zone management. The GRCA reports great success with this program (Boyd, Smith and Veale 1999, p24). Floodplain management should not be focussed only upon reducing flood risk to humans. Water pollution from point and non point sources should be addressed and minimized, aquifer replenishment and Impermeable surfaces can be balanced, and critical fish and wildlife habitats should be preserved or enhanced where possible.  6.3  Risk Spreading Measures  Risk spreading measures are those that dilute the burden of risk from one geographical area or population, and spread them out across a greater forum. The great benefit of using risk spreading measures comes after a flood occurs, and the costs of repair and recovery do not have to born by the individual or small region, but by a broader populous. Risk spreading measures can also be used as action incentives for flood mitigation. Typically, these measures are financial tools. This section will discuss the merits of using tax incentives, flood insurance, and disaster financial assistance programs.  6.3.1 Tax Incentives Tax incentives could be created at the provincial or municipal level to encourage citizens to take responsibility for their own property, and take action in order to reduce their risks. For example, if a homeowner were to invest in a flood mitigation measure for their home, they would be granted a tax rebate, or the property tax could be reduced. This reduction 80  or rebate would reflect the lower cost of disaster relief that the homeowner would require if a flood were to occur. When put into practice, tax incentives for mitigation often create a disincentive towards mitigative action. If a property owner were to respond to the tax incentive program and improve their home by investing in mitigation measures, the greater resistance to flood may be reflected in a higher value when their property is reassessed, and hence they would have to pay a higher tax in the long run. In order to avoid mitigation rebates being cancelled out by higher property reassessments in the long run, corresponding legislature needs to be passed. The State of California recognized this inconsistency when it introduced seismic rebates for mitigation measures taken by homeowners. Proposition 127 exempts seismic rehabilitation improvements to buildings from reassessments that would increase property taxes (Bond 1999, p1946, Kunreuther et al 1999, p129). Tax incentives are a great addition to a well rounded risk spreading strategy.  The  community as a whole stands to gain if one homeowner implements a flood mitigation measure which results in the protection of their property if a flood were to occur. Firstly, the homeowner would save disaster relief payments and possibly insurance claims. More importantly for the greater good of the community, the homeowner would not require temporary living space, food, clothing and other essentials, and likely not lose any time at work. These greater gains are associated with broader units of analysis such as the community, provincial and federal level, and cannot be captured with insurance payouts or disaster relief since both of these tools mainly focus on property damage only (Kunreutheretai 1999, p129). 6.3.2 Disaster Financial  Assistance  Disaster Financial Assistance, whether provided provincially or federally has proven to be an inefficient expenditure, and furthermore promotes unsustainable development of floodplains. If residents know that they are eligible for DFA, they have no incentive to 81  mitigate against disaster. On the other hand, DFA could potentially provide enormous incentive towards mitigation and collaboration at all levels of government in the name of disaster prevention. By coordinating DFA eligibility requirements with provincial flood protection and land use strategies, DFA could become a tool for enforcement. Homeowners living in risky areas could be required to upgrade their mitigation measures to a certain standard, with the incentive being that DFA would be withheld in the future if a flood were to strike. Particular mitigation measures would be outlined by the provincial or local strategies, but the added knowledge that DFA is not an inherent right, but a luxury that must be earned may spark action and the local and individual level. This strategy would require enormous efforts for the education of individuals at risk in order for them to become aware of potential risks, solutions, and what to expect from federal and provincial levels of government. Currently, costs pertaining to the maintenance or development of mitigative measures are not eligible for cost sharing under DFA guidelines. The guidelines could be expanded to include or even require investment in mitigation.  Often times DFA is repeatedly awarded  to the same property owner located in a highly risky floodplain. These repetitive flood loss claims should be specifically addressed, so as to reduce risk to the property owner and reduce repetitive payouts. Property acquisition is one option. In the 1950's The City of Toronto purchased land that had demonstrated a high annual flooding frequency. This space was designated as parkland, and the natural hydrological cycle remains uninterrupted by human development in the immediate vicinity, whereas flooding never interferes with the human sphere and no damages are caused. In some cases, it may be economically prudent for a regional, provincial or federal government to actually purchase land, instead of continually make DFA payments for regularly occurring disasters. There are some downfalls associated with land acquisition, such as precedent setting for the acquisition of other hazardous areas such as toxically polluted sites, or earthquake prone zones. Additionally, as is evident in the lower Fraser region, property values may be too high in flood prone zones for acquisition to be an option. Regardless, repetitive flood loss 82  payments provide a great incentive for coordinated planning and enforcement efforts for future development of flood plains.  6.3.3 Flood Insurance Two main themes have continued to resurface throughout this document, they are equity in cost sharing after a flood strikes, and enforcing mitigation as a way to reduce risks and damage. Insurance provides a means to achieve both of these objectives. Canada stands to learn much from the development of similar programs in other countries such as the United States, France and Japan, all of which currently administer flood or disaster insurance schemes. Policy learning and borrowing can inform the creation of a flood or disaster insurance program for Canadians, developed closely with land use planning programs, and geared specifically towards the unique risks and needs in this country. Ideally, flood insurance should reduce flood damages by discouraging flood plain development through informing potential developers and occupants of the risk inherent to their region, or requiring mitigative measures to be present in order to receive insurance. In lieu of damage prevention, the social cost of flood damage would be reduced by imposing on developers and occupants, all external costs that their presence would otherwise impose on the population as a whole. In this sense, insurance can help promote mitigation and sound land use practice, and at the same time redistribute costs more efficiently to those who are unable or unwilling to mitigate against, or remove themselves from the risk of flood (Loughlin 1971, p236). If insurance is applied without the stringent enforcement of mitigative measures, a disincentive towards mitigation or caution could be created, as those with insurance policies would essentially rewarded with reimbursement after a disaster. Due to this danger, it is important that any flood insurance scheme developed be closely tied to land use planning strategies.  83  As was outlined in Chapter 4, it is not economically viable for private companies to offer flood insurance, and a public insurance body would be cumbersome in addition to the DFA program. Over the last several years, the IBC and EPC have been considering the possibility of disaster insurance in the form of a public-private partnership. This set up would best utilize the insurance industry's expertise in disaster management and reduction in addition to their business knowledge about marketing and administering policies, processing claims, calculating premiums and otherwise managing the program.  The  government would make the insurance of a flood risk possible by guaranteeing all funds. This way, insurance companies are not themselves financially responsible for claims payouts after floods, but benefit with the extra business and positive public exposure. Tha government benefits by essentially making its DFA payouts much more efficient than under the current system. The money spent on administering the insurance program and enforcing mitigation efforts amongst policy holders will ideally be an investment in mitigation itself, and result in a lower expenditure on recovery.  The liability system has the potential to be a powerful tool for encouraging key parties to enforce relevant standards and regulations. A solidly designed flood insurance program would use liability to link all the relevant pieces of the flood mitigation puzzle. Insurers would not be liable for claims if they could show that the relevant building code was not enforced. Contractors and builders who did not follow a building code standard could be responsible for paying for the damage to poorly designed homes which suffered flood damage as a result. Banks that neglected to require homeowners in high risk areas to purchase flood insurance in federally insured mortgages could be forced to pay the claims that the property owner would have collected from a flood policy (Kunreuther et al 1999, p128).  With the cooperation and participation of individuals, governments, private  enterprise and major financial institutions, funds and action can be mobilized towards mitigating flood damages in Canada. The development of a comprehensive and successful flood insurance program will take much cooperation between citizens, governments and private business. The details and 84  scope of such a project cannot be developed here, but a general guideline for goals and objectives can be suggested. Ideally, a flood insurance program in Canada would ensure: •  Residential insurance at a reasonable cost.  •  Use of reinsurance to further spread risks and protect the capital pool.  •  Prevention of severe fluxuations in private industry and national economy by accumulating and successfully managing sufficient funds for payouts.  •  A reduction in government spending on DFA for floods.  A program as extensive and involving as the one suggested here would foreseeably have several basic requirements, they include: •  Current mapping and data about flood risk.  •  Education programs for the public about flood risks, hazards and mitigation.  •  Broad based program involvement from all sectors.  •  Participation in, and knowledge of local, provincial and federal mitigation efforts of all sorts (land use, structural, ecological, financial).  The challenge in creating this program will be to address all the issues, meet the objectives, involve all the relevant parties, and yet not become ineffective due to all the administrative and procedural difficulties, and not to further encumber the current system. If Canada approaches this project with underlying goals embedded in sustainable development, embraces new partnerships, and utilizes creative solutions, flood insurance is potentially the mortar that will bind a successful flood mitigation and land use strategy for the future.  6.4 Vulnerability Reduction Measures As Canadians, "our built environment is our shelter from the elements, our homes, our means to generate wealth, our source of energy, water, and waste treatment, our means for well-being and our human habitat. It is as important and essential as the natural environment is to the other inhabitants of this planet (Auld in Dalgliesh 1998, p470)." Natural hazards do not become disasters until they come into contact with our built 85  environment. To reduce damages when these spheres collide, we can take precautions which best prepare our built environment for all hazards they may face. Building codes and the careful maintenance of existing structures will assist with this preparation. 6.4.1 Building Codes  Building codes are standards that guide the design, construction and maintenance of structures in a community. The standards dictate the structural design characteristics that make a structure more impervious to flood damage (Vermeiren 1993, p4). Building codes establish the minimum acceptable standards necessary for preserving public health, safety and welfare and for protecting property. Building codes also provide other functions, such as promoting a level and predictable playing field for designers, suppliers and builders; promote a degree of comfort for buyers who are entitled to rely on minimum construction standards for the safety and soundness of a building; allow economies of scale in the production of building materials and construction of buildings; contribute to the overall durability of buildings (Kunreuther et al 1999, p126).  There are literally hundreds of ways building codes could be used to help reduce the damage of floods on infrastructure. Some flood proofing examples include: anchoring buildings to prevent floatation, elevating structure above maximum flood levels, requiring specific roof and wall materials and construction techniques, and affixing ceilings and walls to the building foundations. Canada has an array of standards and national codes for the design and regulation of most structures in the build environment. The National Building Code (NBC) is issued by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, a division of the National Research Council of Canada. In 1995 the NBC was revised in the first major overhaul of the Code since 1965. The most notable updates include predictions of climate change impacts, such as changes in snow loads and water levels, on 600 municipalities across Canada (National 86  Research Council 1995). As a result, the building codes more accurately represent the risks associated with individual properties. The development of more stringent and detailed codes as a reflection of the predicted worse case climate scenarios makes codes more difficult to comply with, but once compliance is achieved, the long term investment will have greater returns. Additionally, there have been changes in the NBC to reflect a new objective, energy conservation in the construction phase and lifetime of the structure. The NBC is very exhaustive in dealing with the built environment, but there are several sections relevant to reducing flood damage, and other related damages. Part 4 of the NBC dictates the design requirements that engineered structures are subject to whenever the code is adopted by a municipality. Approximately 80% of the Canadian population is covered by this section of the code, in every province and territory (Dalgliesh 1998, p462). Part 5 of the NBC deals with the protection of the indoor environment against the various forms of wind and moisture, and has recently been updated to reflect new objectives in achieving more durable buildings (Dalgliesh 1998, p462). Part 9 of the NBC outlines the requirements for housing and other structures less than 600 meters square in size, and lower than three stories in height (National Building Council 1995). In addition to the NBC, there is another set of standards which are geared toward increasing the durability of structures in Canada. S 478 Guideline on Durability of Buildings was developed by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). PWGSC manages the largest and most diverse portfolio of built structures in Canada. In response to rapidly increasing costs in building maintenance and after years of building management experience PWGSC produced the first Canadian standard with clear requirements for ensuring durability in design and maintenance. When they had trouble implementing and enforcing their standard with consultants and contractors, PWGSC requested the funding required to formalize the S478 Guideline on Durability of Buildings, and it was adapted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA).  87  CSA S478 is the first standard in North America geared explicitly toward quality assurance, a team approach to building and maintaining durable structures, and a clear statement on the intended service life of the structure and the maintenance program required (CSA 1994). CSA S478 suggests three avenues for achievement of these goals, they are; "use of documented records of successful performance, modelling of the deterioration process, and testing of assemblies in simulated environments (Dalgliesh 1998, p462)." The greatest aspect of this standard is it's use of historical documentation, so that lessons may be learned from the past, and new owners, users and managers of the structures may know the state of the building in a more accurate sense. Also, performance of structures during extreme weather events can be monitored and recorded to confirm and finer tune building codes and design data. Enforcement is the most important aspect of building codes.  Well researched and  designed codes are useless unless they are enforced. Unfortunately, this is a difficult task in many communities for a number of reasons. Codes are enforced on existing structures by thoroughly inspecting the property for breaches in the code, or items which may reduce the structures ability to withstand high water levels. Enforcement of building codes in Canadian communities is often compromised by a shortage of inspectors and funding at the municipal level. Studies in the United States show that as much as 50% of the 30 billion dollars in damage caused by Hurricane Andrew (1994) in Florida could have been avoided if only basic building standards had been enforced (CESDDP 1998). One way to increase compliance is to promote the funding and training of inspectors at the municipal level, ultimately this responsibility and burden falls onto the shoulders of local governments and communities. Another way to promote the use and enforcement of building codes would be to create a more comprehensive program, with incentives from other sectors. For example, flood proofing measures could be incorporated into building codes, and then municipalities could award a seal of approval to each structure which meets or exceeds these standards. Formally recognising structures which have been successfully inspected increases the 88  provision of accurate information available to the property owner, or the potential property owner. The seal of approval program could be administered by local governments, but in partnership with real estate agents, builders and financial institutions in order to combat the typical arguments and misperceptions surrounding the enforcement of building codes. For example, builders often resist building code compliance or changes because they assume that the benefits of adapting the required measures are not commensurate with the costs. However, according to studies by the Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction (IIPLR), building code enforcement costs are often incremental, nominal and are inconsequential to the final overall cost of the structure (1996, p15). However, the benefits of making such improvements to a building may have enormous effects on the life safety and property damage resistance of a structure in the long term (IIPLR 1996, p18). To illustrate this, the IIPLR published the results of a survey which revealed that 9 1 % of homeowners in hurricane-prone coastal areas of the eastern United States believed that builders should be required to follow stricter building codes even if it were to add as much as $US 5000 to the cost of a $US 100 000 home (IIPLR 1996, p18). Another excuse for the lack of building code compliance is the perception that the extra cost of heartier materials or special construction techniques will increase the overall price enough to force potential buyers out of the market. Kunreuther et al (1999) suggest that a seal of approval program could help to offset this by increasing the property value of a home, because buyers could expect to pay a premium for a safer structure. If this were to be reinforced by incentives enshrined in mortgage programs and by co operation with real estate agents, it is conceivable that such a program would be very successful. It is very costly for older structures to be retro-fitted with flood proof measures, relative to building to the standards in the first place. Vermeiren reported that "all empirical evidence shows that it is significantly more cost effective to design and build a structure to standards that would withstand expected floods rather than to build to lower standards that are initially cheaper, and to suffer the damages in the long run (1993 p5). Vermeiren illustrated this 89  by reporting on the costs of retro-fitting buildings in California to reduce earthquake vulnerability.  It was found that for newly constructed public buildings in the state of  California, building code compliance added an additional 5% cost to the total, whereas retrofitting existing structures to these same standards cost greater that 40% of the total value of the buildings (Vermeiren 1993, p9). This exhortative cost sometimes causes a reluctance for inspectors or communities to enforce building codes, except in rare cases where a community feels that the benefits of preserving a particular structure is worth the expense (Kunreuther et al 1999, p127). A national mitigation strategy is useful in tackling such reluctance, since funding and incentives can be amassed by the federal governments and its partners for the purpose of retrofitting buildings that qualify. The means to achieve this exist within the CSA S478 standards as described above. The emphasis on record keeping, maintenance schedules, and life cycle assessment provides incentive to consider trade-offs between a higher first cost with less overall maintenance, versus a lower first cost with high and more frequent maintenance costs (CSA 1994). A comprehensive and co-ordinated national program would also eliminate other inconsistencies inherent in incentives to adopt mitigative building standards. For example, a community may decide against retrofitting expensive buildings or public infrastructure, since they know that under the current DFA agreement, the federal government will cover as much as 90% of damage if a disaster were to occur. Individual homeowners may choose not to spend money on changing their structure if they hold an insurance policy which would cover any damage in the case of a disaster, unless the premium discount from the insurer was substantial enough to make the structural investment economically attractive (Kunreuther et al 1999, p121). By co-ordinating efforts, these disincentives can be identified and addressed using the resources available from all the partnerships.  6.4.2  Maintenance of Existing Protective  Infrastructure  The strong history of physical flood protection works in Canada means that most communities use structural protection as their main flood management tool.  Many 90  settlements would not even exist if it were not for existing flood protection works, the city of Winnipeg is a case in point. Major spillway and diking construction was completed in the 1950's, and as a result the city has been able to grow and expand in areas which were previously too dangerous.  These structures have become an integral and important  component of the way flood risks are managed, and are apart of the cultural landscape in many municipalities. It is much too late to remove existing diking systems as entire communities would be exposed. Instead, it is important to maintain the structures so they are able to perform as they were originally intended. Integrated non structural mitigation strategies would be required to complete the equation, and ensure that the flood risk does not increase beyond the original measures. The need for new protection works, and the priority of existing dike maintenance should be assessed within the context of the overall integrated flood mitigation approach adapted at the community and regional level. Ideally, decision makers would place a high priority on the maintenance of existing dikes, and assign secondary priority to the expansion or development of new structural systems. New flood protection works would be approved as a part of an overall integrated flood hazard management approach if used to maintain or protect the stability of existing protection systems, or to protect life and property when alternative measures prove to be either unavailable or impractical (Marshall 1996, p25). The integrity and reliability of existing structures are imperative to the public safety in communities with flood risks, therefore local authorities must ensure that all flood protection works are maintained to an acceptable and agreed upon standard. The provision of adequate resources, technology, training, personnel, and equipment must be guaranteed by communities. The costs of existing and updating existing structures may be great. Local governments and First Nations communities are responsible for the building and maintenance of structural flood protection measures, however, often times they do not have sufficient resources for such projects, especially in rural areas. Local communities should work out funding programs with other partners in the integrated flood mitigation program, such as 91  the provincial and federal governments, MELP, DIAND, and possibly other beneficiaries such as business and homeowners who are directly reliant upon such measures. Currently, the only funding available from senior government branches is through the provincial emergency fund (the BC Emergency Fund in British Columbia) and DFA. However, these funds are only available after a flood has occurred, so the system must be altered to take on a more proactive rather than reactive approach. Dike maintenance activities vary with the structure type and the physical environment within which it is located. In terms of river bed maintenance, gravel and sediment removal must occur behind dikes and dams where accumulation has occurred. When river bed deposits build up, the river bottom is effectively raised, and with it, the water level (Marshall 1996, p24). This may not be detrimental to a dike or dam at the individual level, but it does change the fluvial geomorphology of the floodplain, and may threaten the integrity of other structures up and down stream. General terrestrial maintenance activities include removing brush and tree growth from structures, repairs to dike slopes and bank protection works, repairing and cleaning flood boxes, operating and repairing pump stations and paying electrical service costs. It is common, especially in rural areas, for the prior diking authority to have dissolved, leaving unattended and maintained 'orphan' dikes. In BC there are many orphan dikes, most built hastily in response to an emergency flood, or by private citizens on private property, or in rural areas where no legal authority for their operation and maintenance had ever been allocated (Marshall 1996, p28). All such structures must be identified and studied individually, and responsibility allocated to the rightful authorities.  Dike  maintenance is impossible if dike access is denied. In the case of orphan dikes and other structures located on private or First Nations land, property owners have disallowed access to the structures. Easement agreements must be signed with such property owners in order to assure dike access.  Where this fails, other legislation such as the Dike  Maintenance Act, the Emergency Program Act and the Expropriation Act can be evoked in order to achieve the necessary access (Marshall 1996, p31).  92  Table 6: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Toolkit EFFECT  MEASURE RISK AVOIDANCE MEASURES Early Warning Systems Land Use and Resource Planning Ecological Solutions  Modify the loss potential Modify the loss potential Modify the risk  RISK SPREADING MEASURES Tax Incentives Flood Insurance Disaster Financial Assistance  Plan for the loss Plan for the loss Bear the loss  VULNERABILITY REDUCTION MEASURES Modify the loss potential Building Codes Modify the loss potential Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure  6.5 Summary of Proposed Toolkit The non structural flood mitigation solutions outlined above can be taken out of the toolkit by communities or municipalities as needed. With the organization, administration and information sharing aspects of the program housed at the federal level, municipalities are free to learn by example from successes in other communities, or just take advantage of programs, funds and expertise already in place. For example, a community may decide that they are going to place an emphasis on enforcing up to date building codes in response to the risk of floods, as well as other natural hazards and to generally improve the standard of living in its community. Assistance in building code information, enforcement and maintenance can be drawn upon from a national flood mitigation program.  The  development and implementation of an early warning system or a community disaster prevention plan are also examples of voluntary programs that could be tailored by each community towards their own specific needs and experience. An insurance or tax scheme on the other hand, would require a commitment from the community decision makers as well as the individual homeowner or business operator. 93  Unlike the voluntary or optional tools, an insurance scheme would have to be approved by community members and then applied, instead of embraced by the local politicians and then enforced upon the citizenry (such as building codes). The tools described above are certainly not all the measures available for communities to use to reduce flood risk and damages, but were highlighted for their diversity, adaptability, flexibility and efficiency. Many communities may have one or some of these programs in place already. A national mitigation strategy would allow them to strengthen and improve their programs with the infusion of more complete information and increased resources. Other communities are unaware of the threat that floods may pose, and therefore stand to gain the most from tools which would help them identify risks and develop solutions to counter act dangers before they occur.  94  7. Implementation The establishment of an integrated non structural flood mitigation program in theory is only useful if it is implemented successfully in practice. Mitigation strategies and techniques can be difficult to implement both politically and economically.  The design of the mitigation  strategy can facilitate implementation by providing appealing and feasible incentives, and by requiring its supporters to prove their commitment to implementation by providing and investment of financial resources (BOND 1999). Likely the most important aspect of implementation is the long term commitments made by the strategy's champions. The mitigation strategy proposed for Canada in the previous chapters is characterised by its basis in sustainability. When it comes down to implementation it is often easier to pass off responsibility to future generations, especially in the face of a highly uncertain threat. The concept of mitigation is beginning to see acceptance and implementation in communities as a result of increasing response and recovery costs (as outlined in Chapter 5). But it is imperative that a proactive stance on mitigation be embraced by communities at risk. There are several important aspects of implementation which will be looked at in greater detail in this section. Firstly, the importance of establishing a planning process for the implementation of a flood mitigation strategy within a community. A second important aspect of implementation is the understanding of the decision making process utilised by the key stakeholders both inside and outside the community. There are some helpful strategies taken from past successful implementations which will be outlined, and this section will conclude with excerpts from interviews with authorities from the lower Fraser region and the IDNDR about the reality of implementing a nationally integrated flood mitigation strategy.  95  7.1 Establishment of a Planning Process for Flood Mitigation Communities with high flood risks, such as urban locations, or those located in flood plains or in coastal regions differ greatly depending on many factors such as the natural geographic landscape, size, historical development and climate. The political structure of communities in Canada vary widely, some may be incorporated municipalities, some are outlying areas of larger towns or cities, and some are unincorporated areas under other jurisdictions. It is rare for political units of any type to conveniently coincide with naturally occurring physical barriers or features such as coastal ecosystems, inland floodplains, or even major bodies of water. The major challenge in implementation is to achieve some degree of harmony among the different types and levels of government across a diverse array of physical, social and cultural characteristics within each unique community (Kunreuther et al 1999, p133). This is the strength of a national mitigation strategy, implementable on a local level, but co-ordinated and monitored at the national or provincial level. Integrated planning requires that higher levels of government, when necessary, preempt certain actions by lower levels that threaten to undermine urban, coastal or flood plain management objectives.  For example, if a local community were to approve a major  development project in a flood plain which would in some manner change or increase the risks and vulnerabilities of their own community and those downstream, an overseeing body may intervene in order to maintain or ensure that the overall objectives of the entire flood plain are still adhered to and upheld.  The establishment of a hazard mitigation committee is an important step that a community can take in order to maximise its participation in the implementation of a mitigation strategy. Ideally, membership should include individuals representing key interested parties from the community as well as local, regional, provincial or federal officials who have expertise in hazard mitigation and understand the ways in which their units of government can interface with local communities and resources (Burby 1998, p 87). The committee would be expected to play a key role in developing and evaluating mitigation strategies in a way that increases the chances that such tools will be implemented. By ensuring that all relevant 96  interests are represented in the planning process, the committee increases the likelihood that a consensus can be reached in regards to how implementation can occur.  7.2 Understanding the Decision Making Process of Key Stakeholders Before a mitigation strategy can be developed or implemented it is important to know how key stakeholders, such as home and land owners, business related personnel and politicians, deal with the flood hazard in their community. Understanding the way each of these groups processes information, and the nature of their concerns is integral to the design and implementation of a successful mitigation strategy. For example, studies show that homeowners in hazard prone areas typically understand that there is a likelihood of a disaster occurring but believe that such a disaster 'will not happen to me' while living in their structure (Palm 1995, Kunreuther 1996). Kunreuther's studies also show that property owners are very reluctant to incur the costs of investing in a mitigation measure because of household budget constraints or because of the underestimation of the value of such an investment.  The latter is often true in the presence of a high discount rate or the  expectation that the homeowner will only reside in the structure for a short space of time (Kunreuther, Onculer and Slovic 1998, p 281). All of these factors indicate that it could be extremely difficult to encourage homeowners to adopt voluntary mitigation measures unless the strategies are inexpensive and the homeowners are particularly concerned with the onset of a disaster (Kunreuther et al 1999, p133).  Homeowners are not the only important stakeholders in the implementation equation. An integrated mitigation scheme would span into the economic and political sector as well, and most of these parties have little incentive to call attention to the potential threat of a flood hazard. For example, unless they were forced by law, real estate agents would be reluctant to reveal the level of hazard inherent in the site or structure of a property they were keen to sell. A study by Palm (1981) shows that many real estate agents only reveal that a structure is located in hazard prone site after they sense that the potential buyer has committed psychologically to the purchase. Similarly, builders and engineers have little 97  economic incentive to build, design or enforce the development of safer structures since costs would rise as a result (May and Stark 1992). It would seem prudent for banks and financial institutions to desire accurate knowledge of the risks they are facing when issuing a mortgage, for example. Although there is little evidence that they even take such factors as flood risks into account in their decision making process. Insurers have made an effort to understand the true risks and hazards, as they have an incentive to charge accurate premiums or face insolvency if a disaster were to strike. A survey done in the United States in 1998 revealed that local politicians and officials tended to rank natural disasters as a minor problem , relative of course to other problems such as crime, housing affordability and education (Burby 1998). One study specifically reported that local officials ranked natural hazards thirteenth in importance among community problems, just behind pornographic literature (Rossi et al. 1982). As described previously in section 3.2, disasters most typically reach political agenda's only immediately after a crisis has occurred, and response and recovery are the main interests of decision makers at that stage.  7.3 Strategies for Successful Implementation A solid integrated community plan to mitigate floods requires the implementation of a variety of different measures, as outlined in Chapter 6. Building code enforcement and the maintenance of flood proofing structures are of great importance, but the key to successful all around implementation is changing the philosophy of community development at its core, and the embracing of this concept by all sectors of the community. A community based approach requires the integration of the principles and techniques of mitigation into the way communities are developed. The existing planning-developing process available in almost every community is an effective means through which this can be applied.  98  7.3.1 Cost Benefit Analysis of a Non Structural Integrated Approach  Cost benefit analysis is a tool used in most community development decision making process in order to evaluate the relative effectiveness of a new measure. Mitigation strategies can be subjected to cost benefit analyses in order to discover the benefits of implementing a particular technique, or helping to decide which combination of techniques would be most valuable and viable for a community. A solid mitigation strategy has an increased chance of being implemented if all interested and affected parties feel that net gains will be achieved if specific flood mitigation measures are implemented (Kunreuther et al 1999, p138). A mitigation strategy or a set of mitigation tools will only be implemented promoted by governments and other key stakeholders if it can be shown with certainty that there are solid benefits associated with it. Cost benefit analyses (CBA) are often used by planners to discover which options are better than others, or if the option is viable at all. Each community would have to create a cost benefit analysis formula specific to its characteristics and the mitigation strategies under consideration. This section will provide a general outline of a hypothetical cost benefit analysis for an integrated flood mitigation strategy. Firstly, a community will have to determine methodological factors such as quality of risk information, and the planning horizon or life span of the project (Vermeiren 1993). In order to better understand the risks and vulnerability an assessment of these should be undertaken (as outlined in Section 3 of this report). Once the community is clear on what it has to loose and what the chances are of that risk occurring, better informed decisions can be made. Determining the planning horizon or life span is important since a cost benefit analysis of a mitigation strategy may have very different results depending on the temporal dimension. For example, if a five year time line is assumed, and the mitigation measure under consideration involves the governmental buy back of land at great risk of flooding for 99  a large sum of money, the CBA may find that this is not an effective solution. But if the time horizon is changed to a 25 year period, the returns on the purchase may be more in line with the investment, and instead the CBA may find in favour for the mitigation measure. It is hoped that communities will foresee the importance of long term principles of sustainability in their goals and objectives, and include these long time horizons in with their CBA's. The CBA would be divided into a presentation of all the costs and benefits associated with implementing a mitigation measure, and then the cost side would be compared with the benefits side, and if the benefits exceed the costs then it is clear that the mitigation measure is financially efficient. For flood mitigation measures, the costs side would incorporate the calculation of the present and known value of all costs (see Figure 13). Sometimes, these costs may be difficult and complex to work out. Some examples of costs associated with a mitigative measure are the costs associated with adhering to a stricter standard, the current costs of protective works, or the costs associated with foregoing the use of hazardous areas (Vermeiren 1993). The benefits are calculated according to the expected benefits that may be reaped in the future if the mitigative measure is applied. Expected value can be difficult to calculate since it is associated with an event or outcome which may or may not occur, and may occur at some point in the future which complicates interest rates and values. The expected value of benefits can be broken into two sections, the first being project specific benefits, and the second more broad socio-economic benefits of implementing the mitigation measure (Vermeiren 1993).  100  Figure 13: Typical Cost Benefit Analysis Methodological Factors: - quality of risk information - planning horizon or lifespan  Present Value of Costs:  Expected Value of Benefits:  cost of adhering to new standard cost of protection works cost associated with foregoing the use of hazardous areas  Project specific benefits: -< in maintenance costs -< in insurance costs - losses/damages avoided  Socio-economic Benefits: -continuity in services -contribution to SD -improved investment climate  Examples of project specific benefits are the decrease in maintenance costs for old or ineffective infrastructure, decrease in insurance costs and losses, and specific damages and losses that would be avoided by implementing the measure. Socio-economic benefits may be the ability to continue essential services by avoiding a disaster, the contribution a mitigation measure will make to sustainable development, or the improved investment climate a mitigative measure may inspire. CBA's are susceptible to the same criticisms as are risk or vulnerability analysis, in that the things that are counted are not always the most important whereas the most important things are sometimes left out due to value judgements or the inability to apply monetary units. They are useful in presenting a general estimate of the impacts of a mitigation measure, and are widely used in most planning processes in Canada. 7.3.2 Disaster Resistant  Communities  Several implementation techniques and methods which have contributed to successful implementation programs are described below. These ideas were borrowed from the experience of three disaster mitigation programs in the United States; The Project Impact Program as administered and developed by FEMA (1999), IBHS Showcase Community 101  Program, and the Disaster Recovery Business Alliance initiative (DRBA) (outlined in Kunreuther et al 1999). Communities can work towards the development of a Disaster Resistant Community plan (DRC). In order to be successful, the plan must be developed with and supported by all of the key stakeholders in the community, such as the citizens, financial and insurance institutions, business leaders, local officials, local concerned NGOs or environmental groups, local officials, and input from the provincial and federal governments. There are five major steps toward the creation of a DRC, they are; •  promote public awareness  •  maintain a comprehensive perspective  •  integrate mitigation planning into the local decision making process  •  conduct a community risk analysis  •  create and use a disaster resource network (Kunreuther et al 1999, p 138).  Before implementing new strategies, existing measures can be improved upon and expanded. If a national mitigation strategy for floods is to be endorsed and supported in Canada, all levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal) should immediately examine their current programs and policies to determine whether they are acting counter to mitigation objective and causing a disincentive to reduce vulnerability to flooding. Existing community based mitigation panning models should be examined and analysed. These may provide some useful building blocks to developing an integrated mitigation strategy for the community. Existing plans can be expanded to include the risk posed to the built environment in the community, as well as a range of social, economic, and natural resource or ecosystem vulnerabilities if such spheres had not been included initially (Kunreuther et al 1999, p138). One of the most important and simple mitigation techniques available in almost every community is the proper enforcement of building codes. Communities can make building code enforcement a priority and revitalise existing programs and personnel in order to accomplish this goal. 102  Developing new concepts and procedures is sometimes more difficult in well established communities, but an integrated mitigation strategy that promotes sustainable development, resource management principles, sound community planning and economic incentives for stakeholders will make implementation much easier. The establishment of a flood risk, or general natural hazard mitigation committee which incorporates key government officials and stakeholders can play an important role in developing, evaluating and establishing mitigation measures. This committee may choose to take on several project or policy issues. An important start would be to define as clearly as possible what the risks are, and how they can be reduced. Empirically based model programs for reducing flood risk which factor in the impacts and costs associated with the build environment, business, social concerns and natural resources (Kunreuther et al 1999, p138). The committee could also promote neighbourhood level response and mitigation networks, to increase participation and preparedness at the household level.  To promote the  mitigation of damages after an event, any disaster plan should put an emphasis on the rehabilitation and recovery of social and essential services such as schools, daycares, shelters, hospitals and other similar institutions which may be located within a community. As outlined in Chapter 6, a solid and useful mitigation strategy would incorporate aspects of land use management, building code enforcement, tax and financial incentives, insurance, and communication networks. Governments and mitigation committees within communities must develop and implement these policy tools alongside the related parties, such as real estate agents, contractors and developers, banks and financial institutions, insurance companies and public sector agencies. Such groups and individuals can provide expertise in their field of knowledge, and co-operation from these stakeholders is vital in the implementation process.  103  7.4 Reality Check: Feedback from Decision Makers This program proposal is highly theoretical. Currently, Canada has never implemented a project of such magnitude, and it is difficult to predict how it might be received by different stakeholders. Some may embrace it, some may disregard it as too broad and undoable. It is not easy to predict where stakeholders will identify weaknesses before the implementation process starts. This section contains the results of several informal interviews, discussions and personal communications conducted by the researcher with an array of different stakeholders in order to cast some light on questions of implementation. 7.4.1 The Private Insurance Industry Although the IBC has become one of the most enthusiastic champions of a national mitigation strategy, the individual insurance companies it represents may not be as eager to become involved. An insurance strategy such as the one described in Section 6.3.3 would require the participation of private insurance companies in a program administered in conjunction with the federal government. Mark Baker is a Manager with State Farm Insurance (Toronto). Baker reviewed Section 6.3.1 Tax Incentives and Section 6.3.3 Flood Insurance of this document, and then agreed to provide me with his opinions about the realistic possibilities that the insurance industry and the Canadian government may join forces to provide the homeowner flood insurance. Baker indicated in our discussions that companies would be very hesitant to get involved in such a program for several reasons. Firstly, insurance companies have long known that floods are not risks which they can insure soundly, and refuse to offer insurance. Insurance operates according to a set of rules and historical data, and to insure floods would go against all principles that insurance companies currently operate under.  104  Insurance is all about historical data and stability, change is often met with unwillingness and fear that the economic bottom line may be harmed. Secondly, Baker speculated that the long history of government regulation and (as the insurance industry interprets it) restriction of the Canadian Insurance Industry has created animosity between the two groups over the years. Insurance companies would likely be untrustworthy of any government programs, and possibly unwilling to participate due to longstanding feuds over other issues. It would be essential for these two groups to work closely together, and in reality this may be difficult to achieve. At the organizational level, the IBC and EPC have made some incredible inroads working together to achieve common goals, but achieving acceptance by the overall insurance industry may be more difficult than it seems. Lastly, most Canadian insurers are aware of, or even involved in the United States National Flood Insurance Program through their American offices. Until recently this program had a reputation of being unsuccessful in its quest to reduce flooding risks and provide insurance to disaster victims, while at the same time make a profit.  It has been an  administrative burden for insurance companies over most of its 30 years of operation. Lessons have been learned and the system has been much improved, as is reflected by high levels of private industry participation and profit earning. However, Canadian insurers would be very wary of a similar program being forced upon them, and would not welcome the extra administrative burden, especially if it did not provide great financial gains (opinion and information supplied by Mark Baker, December 1998, personal communication). 7.4.2 Municipal  Stakeholders  The lower Fraser region has been used as an illustrative example throughout this document, so to reflect upon the specific situation in the lower Fraser several authorities from this region were interviewed.  105  Roy Bissett is an Emergency Preparedness Officer with the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services.  He was a part of a task force formed in 1998 to create a neighbourhood  emergency preparation guide for dealing with natural disasters, such as earthquakes, fire, and flood. The neighbourhood preparedness plan was compared with aspects of the integrated non-structural flood mitigation strategy presented in this project, and Bissett was asked for his comments. Specifically, Bissett reviewed Section 6.2 Risk Avoidance Measures and Section 6.4 Vulnerability Reduction Measures.  Bissett felt that the  neighbourhood strategy had an emphasis on the response and recovery stage, and had only a very small section devoted to mitigation and prevention, especially in terms of floods. Bissett said that he felt that the neighbourhood emergency preparedness guide was an essential building block towards mitigation of all disaster types, because it provided the chance for all risks to be identified and assessed, and all support systems, agencies and other community capabilities to be identified and united for the first time in the document. The guide also outlined the responsibilities of citizens in clear language, according to EPC, provincial and local expectations. Bissett concluded that the stage had been set for the introduction of large scale disaster mitigation efforts, and would be best accomplished through the channels that were created during the neighbourhood task force's efforts. Bissett noted that his task force had no Canadian sources to refer to when creating their neighbourhood emergency preparedness guide. They borrowed from templates created in Oakland and Oaklahoma, but there were no Canadian examples available, which would have been useful since the institutional arrangements differ greatly across Canada and the US. He suggested that any regional or local plans such as the one he was involved in should be made available across the country for other such efforts. In general conclusion, Bissett provided solid and enthusiastic support for the integrated non structural flood mitigation proposal outlined here, and praised such aspects such as regional orientation, the incorporation of ecological principles, and the education of the public about their risks and responsibilities. 106  Councillor Vicki Huntington is an elected official in the Corporation of Delta, BC, which spans the townships of Tsawwassen, Ladner and North Delta. These areas are very low lying, saturated, populated, and are growing rapidly. The risk of flood is similar here to other regions of the lower Fraser, and there are extensive diking systems in place similar to the surrounding regions. Huntington reviewed a short synopsis on the risk of flood in the Lower Fraser region, a summary of the string of failures of the BC Provincial and various municipal governments to solidly address flood mitigation in the region, and finally a brief report on the solutions outlined in Section 6. Huntington was aware of the flood risk, and reminisced about the highly publicized flood warnings in the spring and early summer of 1999. She reported that due to citizen demand for information, a flood information link was added to the Delta homepage. After checking this link, I discovered that it merely suggested the concerned citizen should call the fire department to find out what their flood risks could be, and provided the phone number. However, the recognition by municipal decision makers that flood is a sincere risk is important since often times it is only after a flood occurs that politicians address the problem. Huntington seemed genuinely concerned about the flood risk in her constituency and impressively familiar with the diking system and the local topography and hydrology. She was impressed with the strategy and praised its thoroughness. She pointed out that community scale implementation was an important aspect, and likely the only way success could be achieved, however, making such actions a reality are always a challenge. She agreed with incorporating mitigation into other community goals such as ecological conservation, land use planning, sustainability and overall disaster prevention. Huntington said that balancing the demand for development and the opportunities associated with growth against a future risk that is very uncertain and unlikely is difficult since the needs of today typically dominate decision making. She noted that since she, nor many of her neighbours had been in the Delta area in the 1940's, there was a lack of 107  knowledge about how devastating a flood could be to a community, and also a feeling of security about both the denial of a flood occurring and our perceived increased ability to be protected from it.  However, she assuringly stated that as a Delta community develops,  it has the advantage to learn from its neighbours and build right the first time around. When asked about what the future held for properties that are currently located in very high risk zones, she said that engineers and planners would be better to equipped to describe the dangers and possible solutions. She said that most times political reforms and policies are passed and successful when the citizens are rallied behind them, or are even the instigators. In the scenario discussed about current high risk property owners, Huntington pointed out that drastic action such as relocation and land buy-backs would be met with great resistance at this time. Only after a flood or other disaster, when residents suffered losses, would they be motivated to seek other solutions. This is a perfect example of how important education about risks, and empowerment to reduce them can be for the private citizen. Huntington concluded the meeting by saying that never before was the interest so high in community development and safety. Interest groups, neighbourhood groups and growing scientific knowledge about risks are inter reacting to make disaster mitigation an issue that is able to stand on its own on political agendas, and is commanding funding and attention (for example the neighbourhood emergency preparation guide was initiated and funded due to citizen demand). She felt confident that planning and engineering, along with community cooperation along the coast and the Fraser river would result in increasingly lowered flood risks. The looming threat of an earthquake in the lower mainland has spurred action, and has in many ways paved the way for the mitigation of other types of disasters as well.  108  8.  Summary and Recommendations  The creation and implementation of a national non structural flood mitigation strategy should occur in a stepwise manner. This way, existing flood control strategies can be examined and strengthened, gaps can be identified and filled, and action can be taken at the local, provincial and federal level in parallel, yet all working towards the same eventual goal. The first step towards disaster mitigation at the local level is accurate knowledge and information about the risk. In this case, an understanding of the flood hazard is essential before any steps toward mitigation can be taken. Most of the residents in Canada's riskiest communities are aware that they live in flood prone zones, but specific and up to date information about what this means for the safety and security of lives, homes and businesses is often hard to find. A national mitigation strategy could help identify the riskiest zones, and secure funds for mapping and hazard studies. Once the hazard is understood, the next step is for a community to identify its vulnerabilities through integrated risk and vulnerability assessments. Formulas and funds for these assessments can be provided by a national co ordinating body, and each municipality can then tailor them to their needs and carry them out as they see fit. It is recommended that communities along the same coast, or within the same floodplain form partnerships amongst themselves so that information sharing can occur and the basis for future mitigative action can be developed. Provincially, action can be taken to provide incentives for risk and vulnerability assessments, and also matters such as building code compliance and structural flood works maintenance. This is a good level for flood plain management boards and mitigation strategy round tables to occur, since it will enable members of the private sector, local and provincial governments a forum to discuss ecosystems as a whole, instead of just in part.  109  The above-mentioned recommendations can and should be taken with or without the presence of a national flood mitigation strategy. The benefits of a nationally co ordinated mitigation strategy are mostly found in the mobilization and reorganization of financial resources. A restructuring of the DFA concept, and partnerships with private enterprise to create flood insurance for homeowners are the main projects that should be tackled at the national level, and will both affect and be affected by decisions made and carried out at the provincial and local levels. DFA restructuring is an exercise that can take place in-house and should be done immediately in order to provide incentives for provincial and municipal action, and to provide the preliminary groundwork for a flood insurance program which would operate in tandem with the DFA program. The insurance program may take years to properly research and prepare, since unique partnerships will have to be formed between governments, private insurers, NGOs, provincial and local governments, and citizens in order for it to get off the ground. Most importantly, mitigation will not take place without the support of the citizenry. Education about risks and participation in the decision making and planning process are essential if co operation is to be realised. The toolkit of mitigation measures presented in Section 6 of this paper are action items that are only useful if they can be incorporated into the overall planning and management strategies of communities. In reality, these mitigation measures will likely best be implemented as modules in greater community development projects, not as agenda items on their own, or under the direct scope of flood hazard management.  Success will be  achieved If ideas of mitigation can be infused into the planning and decision making process, and become an underlying assumption of solid community planning. Councillor Vicki Huntington, of Delta BC praised the flexibility of the action items in the toolkit, and that the strength of these measures is that they are easily adapted into greater projects. For example, a community may be looking for solutions to forestry management problems near or in a floodplain. Flood mitigation techniques should be included as a part of the dialogue 110  and eventual solution to the greater forestry issue. In this sense, flood mitigation can potentially be achieved through every sector of community development. Communities should start to see themselves as a part of a greater ecosystem, such as the drainage basin or coastal zone they are a part of. Every community in a watershed acting together can begin to tackle flood mitigation issues much more effectively, efficiently and sustainably then individual players acting on their own. Acting without the presence of coordination and an overall vision for the future of the basin will decrease the ability of communities to implement any significant mitigation measures, and might undermine the efforts of others also acting independently.  Ill  Bibliography Arnell, Nigel W. 1994. Flood Hazard Management in the United States and the National Flood Insurance Program. Geoforum 15, no. 5: 525-42. Atkinson, Michael ed. 1993. Governing Canada.  Institutions and Public Policy. Toronto:  Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich Canada Ltd. Baker, Mark W. 1998. Canada Country Study: Insurance Sector. Toronto, Ontario: Environment Canada. . 1998. Personal Communication. Board on Natural Disasters (BOND). 1999. Mitigation Emerges as Major Strategy for Reducing Losses Caused By Natural Disasters. Science. Vol 28, 18 June. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org Bissett, Roy. 1999. Personal Communication. Boyd, Dwight; Anthony Smith and Barbara Veale. 1999. Flood Management on the Grand River, Ontario Canada: A Watershed Conservation Perspective. Environments: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Brooks, Stephen. 1998. Public Policy in Canada.  27:1 p.24-49.  Third Edition. Toronto: Oxford  University Press. Burby, R., et al. 1988. Cities Under Water: A Comparative Evaluation of Ten Cities' Efforts to Manage Floodplain Land Use. Boulder: Institute of Behavioural  Science, University of Colorado. Burby, R. 1998. Cooperating with nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use  Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Burton, Ian., Robert W Kates and Gilbert F. White. 1993. The Environment As Hazard. Second Edition ed. New York: The Guilford Press. Canadian Standards Association. 1995. Guideline on Durability in Buildings-  Structures  (Design). Etobicoke, Ontario: Canadian Standards Association. Cate, Fred H. , ed. 1994. International Disaster Communications: Harnessing the Power of Communications to Avert Disasters and Save Lives. Washington DC.  The Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern University.  112  Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development and Disaster Prevention (CESDDP) 1998. Ecological Principles for Disaster Management Planning.  CESSDP.  Washington, DC. Clemen, Robert T. 1991. Making Hard Decisions.  An Introduction to Decision  Analysis.  Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. Czaja, Ronald and Johnny Blair. 1996. Designing Surveys. A Guide To Decisions and Procedures. California: Pine Forge Press. Dacy, D. C and H. Kunreuther. 1969. The Economics of Natural Disasters. for Federal Policy. New York: The Free Press.  Implications  Dalgliesh, Alan W. 1998. Chapter Nine. Built Environment Sector. Canada Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation., 450-482. Vol. Volume Vll: National  Sectoral Volume. Day, J. C. 1999. Planning for Floods in the Lower Fraser Basin, British Columbia: Toward an Integrated Approach? Environments: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Waterloo. V. 27, no. 1. p. 49-66. Dorcey, Anthony H. J. ed. 1991. Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser Basin. Vancouver, B C :  Westwater Research Institute. Downs, A. 1972. Up and Down With Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. Public Interest. 28: 35-50. Duguay, Joanne. 1998. Building on 50 Years of Partnerships. Emergency Digest.  Preparedness  Dye, Thomas R. 1978. Understanding Public Policy. Third Edition. New Jersey:  Prentice Hall. Environment Canada 1999. All documents available at http://www.ec.gc.ca Etkin, David. 1998. Chapter 2: Climate Change and Extreme Events. Canada Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation.Vol. Volume Vll: National Sectoral Volume. Etkin, David., Maria Teresa Vazquez and Han Kelman. 1998. Natural Disasters and Human Activity: A Contribution to the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation State of the Environment Report. Environment Canada.  113  Etkin, David., Soren Brun and Rodney White. 1997. Coping with Natural Hazards in Canada:  Scientific, Government and Insurance Industry Perspectives.  Toronto:  University of Toronto Press. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1999. Web page. Available at http://www.fema.gov. Fiore, Vincent P. 1993. Federal Wetlands Regulation in Canada and the United States: Suggestions for Canada in Light of Crown Zellerbach and the Peace, Order and Good Government Clause of the Canadian Constitution. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 27: 139-72.  Flavin, Christopher. 1997. Climate Change and Storm Damage: The Insurance Costs Keep Rising. World Watch : 10-11. Fowler Jr, Floyd J. 1995. Improving Survey Questions.  Design and Evaluation. Applied  Social Research Methods Series, Volume 38. California: Sage Publications. Freeman, Paul K and Howard Kunreuther. 1997. Managing Environmental Risk Through Insurance. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Glantz, M. H. et al. 1998. Exploring the Concept of Climate Surprises. A Review of the Literature of the Concept of Surprise and How it is Related to Climate Change.  Boulder, CO: Argonne National Laboratory. Goddard, Sarah. 1995. Global Warming to Cost Insurers. Business Insurance : 75-76. Gordon, H. B, and A. B. Piccock A. M. Fowler and M. R. Haylock. P.H Whetton. 1992. Simulated Changes in Daily Rainfall Intensity Due to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: Implications for Extreme Rainfall Events. Climate Dynamics 8: 83-102. Government of Canada. 1999. Web page. Available at http://www.canada.gc.ca. Greene, Wayne M. 1998. Towards a Canadian National Mitigation Strategy. Summary of Symposium Proceedings. Mitigation Symposium Emergency Preparedness Canada and The Insurance Bureau of Canada. Handmer, John W. 1990. Flood Insurance and Relief in the US and Britain.  Working  Paper #68. University of Colorado: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center. Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedoff, R. Ruedy, G. Russel, and I. Fung. 1988. Global Climate Changes as Forecast by GISS's Three-Dimensional Model. Journal of Geophysical  Research 93: 9341-64.  Harrison, Kathryn. 1996. Passing the Buck. Federalism and Canadian  Environmental  Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press. 114  Harrison, Kathryn and George Hoberg. 1994. Risk, Science and Politics. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Hogg, Peter W. 1996. Constitutional Law of Canada.  Fourth Student Edition. Toronto:  Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing. Hoyt, William and Walter Langbein. 1955. Floods. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Huntington, Vicki. 1999. Personal Communication. Ibbotson, Brett, and John-David Phyper, Eds. 1996. Environmental Management in Canada. 1 ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited. IDNDR. 1994. Strategy for a Safer World in the 21st Century: Disaster and Risk  Reduction, IDNDR Programme Forum, Geneva. IDNDR. 1999. Documents available at http://www.idndr.org/earlywarning.htm Insurance Bureau of Canada. 1998. "Facts About Private-Sector Property and Casualty Insurance in Canada." Web page. Available at http://www.ibc.ca/ibc/english/Factbook/fbpage01.htm. Kates, RW. 1962. Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain  Management.  Research Paper #78. Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago. Keeney, Ralph. 1982. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Operations Research 30, no. 5: 803-38. . 1992. Value-Focused  Thinking. A Path to Creative Decision  making.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Kelman, Steven. 1987. Making Public Policy. A Hopeful View of American Politics. New  York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers. Kingdon, John. 1984. Agenda's, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown. Kovacs, Paul. 1998. Ice Storm 98: Come In Out of The Rain. IBHS Fifth Annual Congress on Natural Hazard Loss  Reduction.  Kunreuther, H., A. Onculer and P. Slovic. 1998. Time Sensitivity for Protective Measures. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 16: 279-99. Kunreuther, H et al. 1999. The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards:  Implications for Risk  Assessment and Mitigation., The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment., Washington DC. 115  Kunreuther, H. 1996. Mitigating Disaster Losses Through Insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12: 171-87. Latta, Brad. 1998. The Case for a National Mitigation Strategy. Emergency Preparedness  Digest.  Lave, Lester. 1986. Approaches to Risk Management: A Critique. Risk Evaluation and Management. Editor V Cavello, and J. Menker and J. Mungam, 27-53. NY: Penguin Press. Levy, David L. 1997. The Political Economy of International Environmental Regimes: An Industry-based Analysis of Ozone Depletion and Climate Change. California Management  Review 39, no. 3: 54-71.  Levy, David L and Daniel Egan. Corporate Political Activity in the International Arena: An Examination of the Climate Change Negotiations. Academy of Management and Marketing 1997 Annual Meeting.  Loughlin, JC. 1971. A Flood Insurance Model for Sharing the Costs of Flood Protection. Water Resources  Research 7, no. 2: 236-44.  Lucas, Alastair R. 1982. Constitutional Law- Federal Fisheries Power- Provincial Resource Management and Property and Civil Rights Powers- Fowler v. The Queen and Northwest Falling Contractors Limited v. The Queen. UBC Law Review 16, no. 1: 145-54. . 1989. R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd. UBC Law Review 23, no. 2: 355-71. MacCrimmon, Kenneth R. 1995. A Radical Proposal: Relating Decision Theory to Real Decisions. Current Gaps as Future Research Opportunities. Decision Theory and Economic  Laboratory.  Marshall, David et al. 1996. Integrated Flood Hazard Management  Strategy, Fraser  Basin Management Program, Vancouver, BC. May, P., and N. Stark. 1992. Design Professions and Earthquake Policy. Spectra. 8:115-32.  Earthquake  McNairn, Colin H. H. 1993. Consolidated Insurance Companies Act of Canada and Regulations 1994. Toronto: Carswell. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia. 1999. All documents available at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca Ministry of Transportation and Hiways, British Columbia. 1999. All Documents available at http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/bchiways 116  Munich Re Group. 1998. World Map of Natural Hazards. Munich: Munich Reinsurance Company. Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada, and Peter Nemetz. 1992. Earthquake: Economic Impact Study. A Study of the Economic Impact of a Severe Earthquake in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Toronto: MROC. Myers, Barry L. 1976. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. American Law Journal 13, no. 3: 315-33.  Business  National Research Council. 1995. National Building Code of Canada 1995. Eleventh  Edition. Ottawa: Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada. Norda, A and T Tokioka. 1989. The Effect of Doubling C 0 2 Concentration on Convective and Non-Convective Precipitation in a General Circulation Model Coupled with a Simple Mixed Layer Ocean. Journal of the Meteorological Society (Japan). 67: 95-110. Palm, R. 1995. Earthquake Insurance: A Longitudinal Study of California  Homeowners.  Boulder: Westview Press. . 1981. Real Estate Agents and Special Studies Zones Disclosure.,  University of  Colorado, Boulder. Pearce, Laurie et al. 1993. British Columbia.  Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability  Analysis.,  Vancouver BC. Piatt, R. H. 1979. Options to Improve Federal Non-structural  Response  to Floods.  Washington, D C : U.S Water Resources Council. Piatt, R. H. and G. M McMullen. Post Flood Recovery and Hazard Mitigation : from the Massachusetts Coast. Publication No. 115. University of  Lessons  Massachusetts at Amherst: Water Resources Research Center. Province of British Columbia. 1979. Municipal Act. Queen's Printer for British Columbia. Victoria. Province of British Columbia. 1995. Compensation  Regulation.  and Disaster Financial  Assistance  B.C. Reg. 124/95. Queen's Printer for British Columbia. Victoria.  Rossi, P., J. Wright and E. Weber-Burdin. 1982. Natural Hazards and Public Choice: The State and Local Politics of Hazard Mitigation. New York: Academic Press.  Roth, Richard J. 1996. "Insurance: What are the Principles of Insuring Natural Disasters?" Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, California. 117  Singer, Saul Jay. 1990. Flooding the Fifth Amendment: The National Flood Insurance Program and the Takings' Clause. Environmental Affairs 17: 323-70. Smiley, D. V. 1987. The Federal Constitution in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smith, D. I. 1993. Greenhouse Climatic Change and Flood Damages, the Implications. Climatic Change 25: 319-33.  Soule, D M. and C Vaughn. 1973. Flood Protection Benefits as Reflected in Property Value Changes. Water Resources Bulletin 9, no. 5: 918-22. Syfert, Robert. 1972. The Unwilling Market for Earthquake Insurance. Best's Review: Property/Liability Insurance Edition. 7: 14-18. Statistics Canada. 1999. Web page. Available at http://www.statcan.ca. The Insurance Institute of Canada. 1979. General Insurance Essentials Part 1. C81 ed.  Toronto: The Insurance Institute of Canada. . 1979. General Insurance Essentials Part 2. C82 ed. Toronto: The Insurance  Institute of Canada. . 1980. Principles and Practice of Insurance. C11 ed. Toronto: The Insurance  Institute of Canada. Tierney, Francis and Paul Braithwaite. 1992. A Guide to Effective Insurance. Second ed. Toronto: Butterworths. Tuohy, Carolyn J. 1992. Policy and Politics in Canada.  Institutionalized  Ambivalence.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Vaut, Gregory A. 1974. The Economics of Flood Insurance. An Analysis of the National  Flood Insurance Program, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics and The University of Massachusetts, Amherst Massachusetts. Vaut, Gregory A. and Cleve Willis. 1973. Non-Efficiency Objectives and Decision Making in Water Resource Developments. Water Resources Bulletin 9, no. 6: 1182-87. Vermeiren, Jan C. Disaster Risk Reduction as a Development Strategy. Caribbean Session, 1993 National Hurricane Conference Caribbean Disaster Mitigation  Project. Wallace, Lindsay. 1997. Part 5: Responsibility for Natural Hazards. Coping with Natural Hazards in Canada:  Perspectives.Toronto:  Scientific, Government and Insurance Industry  University of Toronto Press. 118  Watson et al. 1996. Climate Change 1995. New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. White, G. F. 1968. A Flood Loss Reduction Program. Journal of the Civil Engineering Division ofASCE August 1968: 60-62. . 1945. Human Adjustments to Floods.  Research Paper No. 29. University of  Chicago: Department of Geography. .1961. Papers on Flood Problems, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago. White, G. F et al. 1958. Changes in Urban Occupance of Flood Plains in the United  States, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago. White, Rodney and David Etkin. 1997. Climate Change, Extreme Events and the Canadian Insurance Industry. Unpublished Paper. Toronto : 1-36.  EARP and The University of  Willis, Cleve and Petros Aklilu. 1974. Flood Proofing Decisions with Uncertain Events. Water Resources Bulletin 10, no. 2: 293-303. Willis, Jennifer D. 1976. Flood Insurance- Asset or Liability in Land Use Control.  EPC  Research Report 76-2. EPC: Ottawa.  119  Appendix 1: Responsibilities for Flood Management in the Lower Fraser u. U  u  s  3  c* a  ul o < M»  5<  Q Z <  tO  at  £ w  u c  eg*  3 e:  E 4>  So  oS O  u.  (U *» c  3  3 in  —a e O 22  ez Soz > >- z a o  2  O iu  I *• ae to  >• u z  3  s -« I.>  £ 7 £ * -CJ 3  e-> ••5 S JH  t41 o w e T3 e H r t f i * ai E a. 5 3  c  u <u  o c ^.  N «  £  Q (-  *» 3  „ o  —  _ , CT j=  tJ  *S; .O  |1 45  *5 C O  I s S|  "  E a. & S |  C  . r t f  i  J s-s ° s i •» £ "» n is R  52  120  01 e  fsi £ —JS e g  ge  « °i s *  = £ § 3 16°2s  0 2  <2  1/)  I*-  * So  og 2  OH S = £ = t - D _, ** m u CO  *  3  Is  is l  , — b in c trt nj  -  8-0 -o e  u  _ O J2 ta CT) o ">  o 01  gjf s «  E>Z* gf  <3> S c  A} J2 E  o  53  3  o o S  H  o QJ  M  o 5  2=  el  ill  Eg  e §  ^8  Pi O J2  5  1°  6- fe  41 CL  u  « « 5 O « S c cmC cu«£<;E •ja. « c h i l  Urn  5f is  Q,75 ,  > e o o «>  £1  a 8^  E%  -go Svi g-_© C C ° T3 => O « M  o S y  5  «-c  § 0  A  3<  i s  1 ES E  $  §•=5"-  to  2s  -£ 0> O O  u c J3 01<0  "°T3  > 01 3  8? * P  JS  s  w  e o  |  W P c ~ c « * fee 01 a — 75 8 J o e a ?5 T3  01 c  .  VI  JE C OO  J3J=  2  W C c aj 3 a 2 „ •CJS Oic"0 • o 10 iv • m3  JS  £S e  «-  H3  at  _J  -I  s > O j*  u  *>  —t.  5 2-g S a g _ C CUP E  o e * J= 5  u.  z ui  3  fa 5  II 111 1-2.1  uo  [LDINCS ) RATION  5  MINIS! (MOF)  s  Ul  £  CU  IICT5  MODIFY SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DAMAGES FROM MODIFY FLOODING FLOODING AND DISRUPTION (STRUCTURAL MEASURES) 1 (NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES) 2 • The Forest Land Commission, established under Forest Land Reserve Act, will assist In protecting the forest land base from residential encroachment • Constructs and maintains flood • Sites and ftoodproofs new government protection works on lands which It facilities constructed on floodplains in administers (ali government accordance with Ftoodplain Mappping buildings except MTH facilities Agreement and isolated resource ministry installations).  ta cc  o  ^8 s s  > 3 Ul  o  i  • Develop and adopt Official Community Plans which designate flood hazard lands. • Enact zoning bylaws. • Enact floodplain management bylaws specifying elevation and setback provisions to protect structures from flood damage. • Under Section 734 of the Munclpat Act, when land is considered subject to hazards (flooding, fandsildes, etc.) building inspectors may require an engineering report to certify that land Is safe for intended use.  HI  • Participated as local authority on provincial cost-shared flood proteciton projects, • Maintain flood control works constructed under cost-sharing programs. • Own and manage dyke right-ofway.  5 Z  t—  DC  122  | • Varies. Intome i cases, assist coordination of ratepayers' groups Involved In flood response.  MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF FLOODING (FLOOD FIGHTING AND DISASTER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)} • Carries out restoration of flood damage to provincial forest Infrastructure (roads, bridges). • Responds :o 1 floods and carries out restoratfi of flood damage on works for• which it Is responsible.  C5  u z 2-  U4 5  41  a > u «  0>  W —  0*  E o  w— o  p.  k.  o  Q < u a O ho  Eg  *" u .  z <  r5  £  5  V  ? I ? J22  u X! c «J  g  1-sS  « •- a)  c  o  xi _  £  •sis  S  j: s  s.  ^; E  " S  «J  la: 5 a *p a;*  U vi «-  ,  * v« — S Q.3 1 0  5  2 l S • ^ s£ at  y Q.41 —-  P.  ra a.  a. UJ U  -  n  o  w  is? £  VI  T5  •o  V di V  C  o  a> V  E  0) •a  —  fate E  E w  OJ t3 « p *  9 °  *J  JE  «_o O « * £ * » c = o-f5 ao > c _ A _ 5 "  o 5,  . c  tw  > n O S  3  a; *Ci f £  o  w  Q<a vi w  5 =  i- XI  I s °  o  w  _.u  CLn •  ICQ'S  "25 •a  o a t  VI —I 25 So o z  D z  6 123  124  u, O  P 5 ° ui O JM  O  <  u z  ° ^§5 g  as 5 ft <  3  O  E So <Z =  UN  ae  fi £2  <u  E eo La k_ o c 5  2  O  LL.  ro  •-a  z  go  c 0 •a  3  Q vi  III! _  & e a>  C=  .  01 19 W  8  S ES c v i ^ ^ •o D C '  .55 »—  «*p  13*111  %3  o  lv,_e  S3  i? 13.1 E  « > y* J§f o  "  P. o k- »> D  10  . *SH  5  0  • co  Q.  •0  o 2 D  -ieQ.  UI  11 t  I  2  llf  g  !£ v» oaQ <  •»  Jills! fc-O^  ft  c a.  l i s HIT  • ctoo  a_  *" ^H" w  c  W  .VI  O  E  c 3  ff i5 e i g-5 2 0 a -§•§ 3 - -  — •5.3 R  c  gC-  <x* own  tal  p 5 2 Z  a/ft — C J=!  O iD 0  I  ,3  s e  B  B  -  C > t!  =  :•ou™T! «a i?vt5O o  S3  , o  »  ,u„  c'  B  Q.±3 > • Q.O. to  >• Z Hi  O <  C v  *2  S  is 125  P*Z  Sgu.  Ill  A  S  ui 5 S .5,i l  So  X - h« I™ 1  m  23  o os  Sis  oi,2~  3 O  3  HQ  S^5"5.£  a . 2 >=•  5 « I ,  E Qg2 s  U A  3  2 e  «?' O •« * r t  .XI  5  4) W  EST  5bt S4?  o £ O in • 91  Q  11!  I N  & Ol^^v _ 52 Ci  Co. <u a.  u LU  C , » b.  n OP  CTl  3  *i  S o§ fi * «  I is s  -of  Six  m^S o»|> |5J Si* .23 o-S t: S-S  = *o c  •55  o> = F  5  sli  afF-  l a »  : ^ 5-3  j  >• u> Q O  So 0  O if vi  cn  is - ^ 5  LL.  T3t! f C o f  « =!s § °  « 3 * a  2  £ €>£*  !|S  ttt cn<y  ugS 9? « a. o S 02 ^  Q.  >  Sag  g~ 2  2*5 c  SIG  C  - E c  o c  S , « = 5 i £ o-a  co  O) «i  c eeE o-t «TJ  a i c  ss * K <0  e  "? * w  2 2>°  O V  Z  hp c S i l S S £ ! a - s 2*-  &J< £  S  E  e  5  4)  -a  z a  E oi i  is  VI J ?  4  B'  -4  2  §3  ^2  r-  sf-gj  Z£ V •  J E Wl  -s a E = 62  , Q O)  D-2|  Hi  ^ E  3  ae  3>g 41  3  a s Sij  Iftlfalllill  1/1  HI  S  0.x; - « - o c E"S33 2 £S  I  >w z  * -e"5 4>  c  "5.° 5 * , *8  8 6 5  8 *  cn  S|«  z | ui  T>  S3  Mult  IZ7  rnAStn RIVER AND NORTH FRASER HARBOUR COMMISSION  DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (DND)  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (DOT)  MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF FLOODING (FLOOD FIGHTING AND DISASTER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) 3 • As part of the Federal Financial Assistance Arrangement, provides federal representatives to review damage to provindal Infrastructure. • Undertakes restoration of flood damage on lands for which it Is responsible to administer. • Undertakes restoration of flood damage on lands for which it is responsible to administer.  • Through Coast Guard, ensures that • Responsible for emergency flood planning for navigable waterways are not lands which they administer. adversely affected by Hood control works. • Through Coast Guard, Is resonslble to maintain ship channels andrivertraining works In Lower Fraser River, Including dredging of river channel. Works within the harbour commissions' Jurisdiction are co-managed. • ResponslbJe for construction and • Responsible for emergency flood planning for • Undertalies restoration of maintenance of dykes on property lands which they administer. Rood damage on lands for they administer. which It Is responsible to administer. • May be called on to support response or relief operations In large flood event • Regulates ship traltic In their • Kesponsibre for emergency Hood planning for * Undertakes restoration of areas of Jurisdiction. lands which they administer. flood damage on lands for • In conjunction with Coast Guard, • Floodproofs construction on lands they which it Is responsible to co-manages river channel within administer. administer. their area of Jurisdiction. • Development projects subject to FREMP • Dredges approaches, berths and Estuaiy Management Plan review. docks within area of Jurisdiction. • Development (n the estuary and outside the • Development projects In the dykes are guided by FREMP Estuary Management estuary and outside the dykes are Plan. subject to FREMP Project Review Process.  MODIFY SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DAMAGES FROM MODIFY FLOODING FLOODING AND DISRUPTION (NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES)2 AGENCY (STRUCTURAL MEASURES)! * Undertakes emergency flood planning for • Arranges for dredging of Lower DEPARTMENT OF federal lands for which It is responsible to fraser River channel and PUSUC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES maintenance ofrivertraining works administer. on behalf of Department of CANADA (PWGSC) Transport (Coast Guard). • Responsible for flood and erosion protection of lands for which It is responsible to administer.  Appendix 2: Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation III. FOLLOW-UP ACTION Yokohama Message We, the States Members of the United Nations and other States, having met at the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, in the city of Yokohama, Japan, from 23 May to 27 May 1994, in partnership with nongovernmental organizations, and with the participation of international organizations, the scientific community, business, industry and the media, deliberating within the framework of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, expressing our deep concern for the continuing human suffering and disruption of development caused by natural disasters, and inspired by the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World. Affirm that: 1. The impact of the natural disasters in terms of human and economic losses has risen in recent years, and society in general has become more vulnerable to natural disasters. Those usually most affected by natural and other disasters are the poor and socially disadvantaged groups in developing countries as they are least equipped to cope with them. 2. Disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and relief are four elements which contribute to and gain from the implementation of sustainable development policies. These elements, along with environmental protection and sustainable development, are closely interrelated. Therefore, nations should incorporate them in their development plans and ensure efficient follow up measures at the community, national, regional, sub regional, and international levels. 3. Disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness are better than disaster response in achieving the goals and objectives of the Decade. Disaster response alone is not sufficient, as it yields only temporary results at a very high cost. We have followed this limited approach for too long. This has been further demonstrated by the recent focus on response to complex emergencies which, although compelling, should not divert from pursuing a comprehensive approach. Prevention contributes to lasting improvement in safety and is essential to integrated disaster management.  I2S  4. The world is increasingly interdependent. All countries shall act in a new spirit of partnership to build a safer world based on common interests and shared responsibility to save human lives, since natural disasters do not respect borders. Regional and international cooperation will significantly enhance our ability to achieve real progress in mitigating disasters through the transfer of technology and the sharing of information and joint disaster prevention and mitigation activities. Bilateral and multilateral assistance and financial resources should be mobilized to support these efforts. 5. The information, knowledge and some of the technology necessary to reduce the effects of natural disasters can be available in many cases at low cost and should be applied. Appropriate technology and data, with the corresponding training, should be made available to all freely and in a timely manner, particularly to developing countries. 6. Community involvement and their active participation should be encouraged in order to gain greater insight into the individual and collective perception of development and risk, and to have a clear understanding of the cultural and organizational characteristics of each society as well as of its behaviour and interactions with the physical and natural environment. This knowledge is of the utmost importance to determine those things which favour and hinder prevention and mitigation or encourage or limit the preservation of the environment for the development of future generations, and in order to find effective and efficient means to reduce the impact of disasters. 7. The adopted Yokohama Strategy and related Plan of Action for the rest of the Decade and beyond; a. Will note that each country has the sovereign responsibility to protect its citizens from natural disasters; b. Will give priority attention to the developing countries, in particular the least developed, landlocked countries, and the small island developing States; c. Will develop and strengthen national capacities and capabilities and, where appropriate, national legislation for natural and other disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, including the mobilization of nongovernmental organizations and participation of local communities; d. Will promote and strengthen sub regional, regional and international cooperation in activities to prevent, reduce and mitigate natural and other disasters, with particular emphasis on : i. Human and institutional capacity-building and strengthening; ii. Technology sharing, the collection, the dissemination and the utilization of information; iii. Mobilization of resources.  12^  8. The framework of action of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction provides all vulnerable countries, in particular the developing countries, with the opportunity to achieve a safer world by the end of this century and beyond. In this regard, the international community and the United Nations system in particular must provide adequate support to the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, and its mechanisms, especially the secretariat of the Decade to enable them to carry out their mandate. 9. The Yokohama Conference is at a crossroad in human progress. In one direction lie the meagre results of an extraordinary opportunity given to the United Nations and its Member States. In the other direction, the United Nations and the world community can change the course of events by reducing the suffering from natural disasters. Action is urgently needed. 10. Nations should view the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World as a call to action, individually and in concert with other nations, to implement policies and goals reaffirmed in Yokohama, and to use the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction as a catalyst for change.  ISO  Appendix 3: List of Acronyms BC CSA CBA DFO DIAND DFA DFAA DRBA DRC EMO EPC EC FEMA FDRP FHMP FCCC FBMB FRFCP GIS GCM GVRD GDP CSA S478 IBHS IBC ICC IIPLR IIC IDNDR ISDR MELP MMAH MOT NBC NFIP NRC  British Columbia Canadian Standards Association Cost Benefit Analysis Department of Fisheries and Oceans Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Disaster Financial Assistance Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Disaster Recovery Business Alliance Disaster Resistant Community Emergency Measures Organization Emergency Preparedness Canada Environment Canada Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Damage Reduction Program Flood Hazard Management Program Framework Convention for Climate Change Fraser Basin Management Board Fraser River Flood Control Program Geographic Information System Global Circulation Model Greater Vancouver Regional District Gross Domestic Product Guideline on Durability of Buildings Institute for Home and Business Safety Insurance Bureau of Canada Insurance Council of Canada Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction Insurance Institute of Canada International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Transportation National Building Code National Flood Insurance Program National Research Council  NGO OCHA PWGSC STC UBCM  Non Governmental Organization Office of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs Public Works and Government Services Canada Science and Technology Committee Union of British Columbia Municipalities  UN UNSCD UNDP UNESCO WHO WMO  United Nations United Nations Council for Sustainable Development United Nations Development Program United Nations Education and Science Council Organization World Health Organization World Meteorological Organization  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089489/manifest

Comment

Related Items