Archived Content. Contenu archivé

Transcription

1 ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available. L information dont il est indiqué qu elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request. Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

2 COPING WITH NATURAL HAZARDS IN CANADA: SCIENTIFIC, GOVERNMENT AND INSURANCE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES Prepared for the Round Table on Environmental Risk, Natural Hazards and the Insurance Industry SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS prepared by Rodney White Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto December, 1997 CONTENTS: 1. Introduction 2. Climate change and natural hazards in Canada 3. Occurrence definition - one event or two? 4. Computer models of probable maximum loss 5. The patchwork of responsibility for natural hazards 6. Measuring natural hazards and their impact 7. Five steps toward loss reduction - what needs to be done? 8. Implementation - who should take these steps? 9. List of recommendations Appendix. Membership of the Round Table and Steering Committee University of Toronto j*a%pj Environment Canada ^ MAM -- - Insurers' Advisory Organization Inc. :rgency Preparedness Canada ItÇ The Reinsurance Research Council ^ e co-o P efa tols Insurance/Financial Services ^ SOREMA %/1\Q'

3 Copies of this report may be obtained from: Mona El-Haddad Assistant to the Director Institute for Environmental Studies 33 Willcocks St., Suite 1016 University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E8 tel: fax: m.elhaddad utoronto.ca

4 Institute for Environmental Studies Institut pour l'etude de l'environnement University of Toronto 33 Willcocks Street, Suite 1016, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3E8 fax: internet: http: / / tel: rodney.white@utoronto.ca MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Round Table on Environmental Risk, Natural Hazards and the Insurance Industry From: Rodney R. White, Director, Institute for Environmental Studies Date: December 18, 1997 We are pleased to send you a copy of the Summary and Recommendations from the report "Coping with Natural Hazards in Canada: Scientific, Government and Insurance Industry Perspectives" which we discussed at the meeting of the Round Table in June, One of the recommendations that came from that meeting was that the Steering Committee should produce such a summary to replace the Executive Summary in the original report in order to indicate the operational implications coming from the report and subsequent discussion. The committee has met and exchanged views over the intervening months and we hope that what we have produced meets some of the perceived needs arising from the exercise. We welcome your response to the new document. The committee expects to meet early in the new year to develop plans for another meeting of the Round Table in March/April, 1998 to consider further steps. We welcome your input to these discussions also. With best wishes. encl. Printed on recycled paper

5 Copyright of this document does not belon f th Proper authorization must be obtained from the author for any intended use. ^.^^l^,4.ï-:4\..v:-::l.+v::e rii't\y`i\^4^\\^^^q\':iiii.f.\\\` `.`.^.vi:: The Round Table on Environmental Risk, Natural Hazards and the Insurance Industry is a volunteer group that was first convened in January 1996 to explore the potential for cooperation between scientists in the government and the university and members of the insurance industry. The various parties shared a common concern over rising costs associated with environmental risks and with natural hazards which can lead to catastrophic loss. A steering committee was formed to supervise a pilot project focused on three areas of concern - occurrence definition, the evaluation of computer models of probable maximum loss due to natural hazards, and the 'patchwork' of responsibility for natural hazards in Canada. The four most devastating natural hazards are floods, droughts, hail and tornadoes, to which should be added significant potential damage from earthquakes, landslides, severe winter storms and windstorms. The report which resulted from this project - Coping with Natural Hazards in Canada: Scientific, Government and Insurance Industry Perspectives - was presented to members of the Round Table for discussion in June of this year.' This present document - Summary and Recommendations - is based on the report and on the discussion which followed at the Round Table. page The 2report 1 2 may be obtained from Earle Hamilton, Vice-President, Underwriting Management Services, Insurer's Advisory Organization Inc., 18 King Street East, Suite 800, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1C4; tel: / fax: ; cost is $25 per copy. It is also available on the internet: \\ÿvom1\.\?:+v^:.vtt.^n^.\?vv':vv }i: h\\4:ni. i.} ^.v w....^ v\l. ^ i:.}\.,??: i: :PV^+^4^+v;.4v}y:.}^4n^vii?i:?++:^yuy:,\^:.^4t\1(\:.;.}xvv:kv::`}}^:^'^4v~^?i^i:titi....+^:^' ':. ^::?^:;;^.i:.::^:;:^i;?:^i::i:#:ti^^^:`:\^.:{:?\;;ti*:^z2^i;^t v ^ :\. \^^ \\\^.. h\ti p ^. : \^\ \\.v^ i ^. fi...::i;:. ^!^, F^^:^ '\': ^ >+':.:' ::' ^.::..;.:^..,. {.:..... :^: y..'^:*. c::'<'fi..;+ :' : ':â +:: '.. ' :: :: ï. ' ' -' :::;^: :. ^^. ^` ::^.. ^^...: ^:.. : :`: :^:;::^I.^ ^^.. '^J!^R7'J.^ :i'».^^^^'^^^['i^l^3i:..;... '- ' :. :. IAC^^...^i^^^^ ^i^mkz.^^:^..:.....:. '. :: P:wi::::::` i:i` <'Cr;...\:v :v..:' \+ :'.t :.\ +i.\vt;...:^^...x:.n...:...:......:......:n..:...?i\ï:....iv :hn.... There is a.need for a more thorough analysis of our exposure to risks associated with natural hazards, especially as losses are mounting dramatically. It is quite clear that traditional reliance on the historic record for estimates of exposure has been overtaken by events. The increase in exposure is partly due to well-understood phenomena such as population concentration in regions of high risk, and the increase in value of household and commercial property. More disturbing is the possibility that extreme weather events may become more frequent under the global warming scenario. Our state of knowledge on this critical issue is summarised in the table below. 1

6 Public reaction to expectations of 'climate warming' (due to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect), have been muted by the common assumption that the projected change for globally averaged temperatures is small enough to be non-threatening, especially in a nor-them country like Canada. However, the danger lies not in the projected average increase, but in the expected increase in extreme events, such as high winds and heavy rainfall - events which already exact high costs in Canada and elsewhere. ilational lovemme esearche eieḃlete.: : Occurrence definition is a term used by the insurance industry to determine whether a catastrophe is composed of single or multiple loss occurrences. Such decisions, and the methods of making them, are crucial, for different interpretations can have substantially different financial impacts on insurance and reinsurance companies. This issue is likely to become increasingly important since - as noted above - climate change is expected to produce a greater number of extreme atmospheric events, such as hail, storms and tomadoes, and hence potentially more frequent disagreements on the nature of the phenomena. Attempts to clarify the issue have produced arbitrary definitions such as the '72 hour clause'. The task defined by the steering Penign.:Weentenernengene ---M1111:03DRESZ Similarly, the validation of computer models of probable maximum loss from natural hazards has also recently become a matter of increasing concern, especially due to the unexpectedly high losses that were incurred by the Northridge earthquake and the possibility of an earthquake of similar ee4efiegi beeffej âgeagee committee was to examine scientific definitions of hazardous occurrences to provide something less arbitrary. The report classifies atmospheric phenomena using a temporal-spatial scale based on the physical processes that form them. omoriemepptiewft t of sample con >pityage",.. -::epagt.. InliglIMSUBBIZEMMEll magnitude striking the Vancouver area - an event for which the insurance industry is not prepared. One underlying cause of concern in using these models is that most are based on the U.S. experience transferred to the Canadian context. With the software companies being responsible for the model 2

7 and the insurance companies responsible for the financial data, it is important that each party has a complete understanding of the validity of the data and the assumptions implicit in the models. Recognition of the importance of risk models was highlighted by a recent survey conducted by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to assess the current use of these models by insurance companies in Canada. The OSFI survey led to a requirement that every company use models to estimate PML. The characteristics of the three earthquake models most commonly used in Canada are described. Given that the inclusion of these models in a company's risk management repertoire has important resource implications, including the hiring of specialised personnel, there is a need for a careful cost-benefit analysis before major investments in modelling are made. estions imatk noan dil urancel tià'ke,e5uti: altlettore. bnibaniê: etisë. -Eiii.PAT.0.10SCIRKI0eifeeseateneturate.ofetegymmittege.,..et eadgemegineejegem, Concern over the evolving 'patchwork of responsibility' for losses from natural hazards was also topical due the bewildering variety of practices operating across Canada, resulting from the preponderance of provincial legislation and the lack of harmonisation of these regulations. This concern has been deepened by the reduction of federal support for emergency preparedness, coupled with reductions in provincial spending across the country. The report includes an assessment of responsibility for natural hazards from the point of view of mitigation (both physical and financial), emergency preparedness, disaster response and relief, and recovery. The complex nature of this patchwork is partly responsible for the data problems identified below. As long as it is the responsibility of no governmental or industry ;p9mg ï'efe '4"igee group to measure the total impact of a disaster, no such estimate will be made. Yet until such measurements are available we will remain unable to assess the total cost to Canadian society as a whole. As measurement is fundamental to management, this problem must be addressed, by the stakeholders, as one of the very first steps in a concerted effort to reduce losses from natural hazards. 3

8 v.; tl»ll,...:-.}:;:ulu...}}.l::,lll...:.:,..,;..r:};:;-li:^$r:?'$<$$$;52}{}:uj;<$$;c: :LL,L,.ï;^^'i::'^:.:}`:?%': f$'^ '?:.:::5$ï,,`}:f::::::':.^S.;;fri:.'}ir;:.;.;?.^LL$.; x ^...:::::...:/y.ï.:.'..,:}::::^..:/.:::::.:::::...:.:..::.,...^.::...^l..r.:. $ t;}:.:., :::}:.::::. ::..:: :: :';;...t 't}t$}'..::...:;, r}}}$,...::..:^::...::::.. :....,. ::..; ,: ^i.; :.. ::^:.... L:^... : r:.ic>ilic.... +ti ff: ^^^i^^^^ ' + ^ f^a:^ '^ :::.i}:ld:}}>}:t:}::^':d:}:}:: }:.ya.' :ï$:.}:l'::;:}a}$::}:; S'r'}}}:^i:; >:;;:j >::% }:<: }:: ; «L ::$,:$ a : : i;..:.:::. z::.xl:l::l..:i.}:^}y:}}:^:.'i:^:}...r:...; :::.:... ^itcliij^' '^ '^^7ii^'=2^1it^L]4i^"^^^'^^^M'i'^.:::...:.:::::.:.:::.}}: ::::..,.. ::.:...::::L::.:::::...v:.;... ;..::......i$:}{,.?..:>':;:$ '/:^ 'L ::.::... ^:.:#'#:>ï::?:$2:$::<$j:5.'::.':x:,...::::..::::...:.:::...:.::::.:}>:}}: :::...:: ;.::... :.::..:...:'b} ::...:::.:...:.::: ^^:;^::%^$:L::L^:.. :... }:...::...:...::......::...::^:::: ::::...::^i^::...:.:,...:.::..,.,,.::.:.:-..:::..:,,...::..:..:..r.r:. :.:::.;^...,,LLLL^::;;.:::: :::.:r.^:...-.:...,:::::::::...:.:-..::..:::.::::::...»::::>:::f Before the problem of impact measurement is assessed, there is the problem of measuring the hazardous events themselves. There are well-known biases in the data towards populated areas, as these are more densely instrumented. There is also a lack of agreement on how to measure such things as gusts of wind - for example, over what time period should wind speeds be averaged? Care must be exercised in inferring trends over time, as data-gathering methods and priorities often vary within agencies over time. It might be felt that the impact of hazards on society would be easier to measure than the hazards themselves as the traditional indicators - such as loss of life, injuries and financial loss - are relatively easy to identify. However, our database is woefully inadequate. Even insured losses - the indicator most closely tracked by the industry - may take years to fully assess. More subtle impacts affect the industry indirectly, and over longer period of time, due to bankrupted businesses and buildings that are not restored. In some hard-hit regions there may be significant losses to the local economy and to the quality of life of the survivors. It is assumed that these longer term, social costs are more seriously underestimated than the immediate impact on life and the economy. Fr. : r.l *y:r:ü. fnx+r.ll+;.4f/:^$$$:-`$$:';^:` "t+'i^$ïi$ïg$r»:;? ï ^;; ; :! F^:'r.L+.//n:.L:l ^:; L:;::;:^.:-ti$o: ï^a+;^}i:$p}}i^$: ' :,> }:ii:r'i:+:i:%l:}i}}}}}$}:,y.;.}:ti;lf,. :$^$:y}} :.;i:'j.};l}:i} i ;}$2^:yLY,.:$ ti{1::l}:?v$}i}$$$ : $:... r...:...,. :::%::: ^...:..._. ^...^..^.. ar, ar.r.^t..^.,w' iï.ir:'w:l^ll^!:iy;.^:;.s;^:$t!^ç1.t..:.t:$}tt.,^.^.;:}w.}w.}:.:r i ^..-:-J.^..j^:z^:::iii`: : :::... ::'f,. i 'vr:i$$:j....::::c:.:..v...n:...x...nn...:.n...:n STEP 1: RECOGNISE THAT TIMES HAVE CHANGED. Population growth, economic growth and urbanisation have been steadily concentrating population within economically advanced parts of the world throughout this century. These trends contribute to the substantial increase in the probable maximum loss should a major natural hazard strike a large urban area. Both the Northridge earthquake and Hurricane Andrew narrowly missed such a target, and even then they took the insurance industry by surprise. Small differences in the location of hazards have the power to destabilise the industry. Climate change introduces a major complication to an already complex distribution of risk. Scientific opinion supports the expectation that climate change will increase the likelihood of convective storms, heat waves, floods and (probably) droughts. As the Saguenay disaster demonstrated, the industry can face significant costs from major floods due to insurance policies for business 4

9 interruption, automobile damage, litigation, and response to claims (whether allowed or not). There is also an important amount of goodwill that might be lost if the industry is judged to be unresponsive when hardship occurs. Given that the industry will require substantial public and government cooperation to reduce losses from natural hazards, goodwill is even more important than usual. The combination of economic/demographic trends and climate change means that reliance on the historical record of hazardous events is an inadequate basis for decisionmaking. Attempts to bring about legislative changes to reduce the impacts of hazards will require that a case be made, based on established facts. Right now, that task would be very difficult to carry out. The need to face this problem has been intensified by government downsizing at every level. Now, we are faced with the additional difficulty that even the agencies that are responsible for this task have been drastically cut. Before long it will be seen that some of these cuts are counterproductive, in that they produce short term savings at the cost of exposing society to serious risks from the impacts of hazards such as extreme weather events. STEP 2: BUILD A BETTER DATABASE. We do not even have a good record of past events, let alone reliable predictions for the future. Unless a commitment is made to enhancing the database on natural hazards in Canada the situation will get worse as the impacts of climate change intensify. Hazardous events themselves are inadequately measured, while the impacts of the hazards are even more poorly quantified, especially with regard to the longer term socio-economic damage. The report uncovered serious data gaps when trying to assess social and economic costs from natural hazards, both from the direct impact of the events themselves and from the longer term costs of adaptation and recovery. There is a need, and an opportunity, for interested parties to work more closely on this issue. Improved data collection might encourage more determined efforts towards loss prevention, which is an area where improved co-operation among the players will bring mutual benefits. In some cases this points to the need for changes in legislation (to ensure adequate coverage and to encourage a pro-active response from policyholders); in other cases existing legislation, such as building codes, needs to be better enforced. STEP 3: DEVELOP A DIFFERENT SKILL- MIX IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. As long as the historical record provided a solid basis for decision-making, then experience in the industry was the key requirement for day-to-day management and for policy development. Bad years - due to disasters or other costly events - could be dismissed as anomalous. This is no longer the situation with respect to atmospheric hazards. Two of the problems discussed in this report - occurrence definition and model validation - demonstrated that a wider range of skills should be considered, at least for relatively large companies covering a diversity of risks in the property and casualty business. If the 5

10 industry is to manage the risks arising from natural hazards - as opposed to reacting to events as they occur - then a wider range of skills must be available to the industry, either in-house or through an industry-wide body. structure at a high level, representing the stakeholders represented at the Round Table - the government, insurance industry, and university scientists. STEP 4: ESTABLISH A FORUM FOR REGULAR CONSULTATION ON THESE ISSUES. Productive links between government, university and the insurance industry on these issues are sporadic. Workshops have been held and a forum such as this Round Table can always be called together. However, the problems are long term and will require persistent efforts to reform our current approach to risk management. The patchwork of responsibility has evolved as a reaction to events with no opportunity to evaluate the situation as a whole. We now face the likelihood of significantly large losses without any coherent debate on how the risks should best be managed from the perspective of society as whole. Electronic means of communication, such as and websites, offer some means to remedy this situation, at least on an informal basis, but a more concerted effort needs to be made. However, a means must be found to translate talk into action, such as developing a national loss mitigation strategy. This can be done most expeditiously by a formal STEP 5: CONTRIBUTE TO THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC. Due to the complexity of the `patchwork of responsibility' the nationwide distribution of the costs of natural hazards is not widely understood. Members of the public expect that if they are the victim of a natural hazard that somehow they will be compensated, either by the insurance industry or by various levels of government. Their own responsibility in reducing their level of exposure to risk is not often a subject of debate. Yet this is the area in which loss reduction has the most likely impact through such commonplace factors as adherence to building codes and (in the case of businesses, in particular) duplicating records of transactions. Risk reduction begins with education. What is needed is a much wider understanding of the fact that although the costs of hazards are distributed between the insured party, the government and the insurance industry - in the end - individuals will pay the full cost of the impacts, either out of their own pocket directly, or through taxation, or through insurance premiums. 6

11 With the recent emphasis in government circles on deficit reduction and downsizing it is imperative that priorities be re-addressed in the public sector, including the 'wider public sector' to which universities in Canada belong. As this report demonstrates, every element of society has some responsibility to initiate steps to reduce the impacts of natural hazards. It is in the industry's vital interest to see that every element of Canadian society takes steps to reduce the impacts of natural hazards. The establishment of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction is a sign that this process is underway. Once there is recognition within the industry that times have changed then the rest of the partnership in risk reduction - including the govemment and the universities - can be brought into play. There are multiple government roles that are essential to the risk reduction exercise including data collection, developing public awareness, providing social and physical infrastructure to ensure that society is prepared for disasters, and creating a legislative framework that is conducive to managing risks as effectively as possible. The universities play a complementary role in education and research to support this effort. In Canada, as elsewhere in the world, far too little is currently being done to ensure that the complementary strengths of these potential partners are brought together. It is hoped that the production of this report demonstrates how much can be achieved when the partners pool their resources and that it will provide the basis for further cooperation. 7

12 1. A national task force, involving government, university and industry researchers, should be established and charged with preparing a comprehensive report detailing likely impacts of climate change on natural hazards in Canada. 2. The temporal-spatial classification of occurrences offers an alternative to the current time-delimited treaty by providing the option for using a more rigorous definition for the event covered by a reinsurance treaty. The insurance industry should develop a set of sample contracts to test the implications of this alternative approach on past and hypothetical occurrences. 3. This report identifies a series of questions which should help a prospective model-user to assess the suitability of a particular model for the estimation of their insurance company's earthquake exposure. A similar exercise should be undertaken by the insurance industry for models of atmospheric events, such as windstorms. Each company will need to compare the costs and benefits of developing an in-house capability, compared with using off-the-shelf models offered by software companies. 4. As the patchwork of responsibility for natural hazards has evolved in response to local needs and capacities it would benefit from a critical review. 5. It is essential that baseline data for natural hazards be established and that the full social and economic costs be integrated with the measurement of insured losses. 6. The time has come for the government to develop a flood insurance program, with technical support from the industry, similar to programs that are already in place in other industrialised countries. 7. While the country really needs an integrated database, in the meantime, a pilot study could be carried out to assess these integrated costs for a particular event, such as a tornado or hailstorm. 8. There is an urgent need to develop integrated teams of scientists and insurers to provide an applied research capability regarding natural hazards. The skill-mix should include natural scientists, computer modellers and database managers who can handle spatial data using geographical information systems. 9. The Round Table is a forum that should be continued as a means to maintain these links and develop long term goals, in an informal setting. We recommend that a liaison be established between the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to consider the most appropriate structure for cooperation. 10. The role of education needs to be addressed. It would be useful for the insurance industry, to find out what, if anything, is taught in high schools about the role played by insurance, regarding natural hazards, in a modern, technological, and highly urbaniséd society. 8

13 APPENDIX: MEMBERS OF THE ROUND TABLE ON ENVIRONMENTAL RISK, NATURAL HAZARDS AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY Peter Asselstine, Editor, Canadian Environmental Directory, Copp Clark Professional Mark W. Baker, Supervisor, Disaster Planning - Special Projects, State Farm Insurance Companies Alison Beder-Solway, Environmental Specialist, Risk Control Consulting, Sedgwick Limited John Bland, Director, Mathematical Finance Program, Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto * Leonard Brooks, Professor, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto Sam Broverman, Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Toronto Soren Erik Brun, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Geography, University of Toronto * Ian Burton, Environmental Adaptation Research Group, Environment Canada Robin Charlwood, Vice President, Acres International Ltd., Acres House Philip Chown, Senior Development Officer, School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto * Elaine Collier, Vice President, Corporate Underwriting, Zurich Canada Alan G. Davenpo rt, Director, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario Dennis Deters, Senior Vice President, The Co-operators Group Mona El-Haddad, Assistant to the Director, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto * Dave Etkin, Environmental Adaptation Research Group, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto Jane Graham, Senior Development Officer, Faculty of Arts & Science, University of Toronto A.P. Lino Grima, Assoc. Professor, Institute for Environmental Studies & Department of Geography, University of Toronto Egon E. Gutzeit, Senior Vice-President, Technical Insurances & Reinsurance Underwriting Services, Munich Reinsurance Co. T. Neil Hamilton, Flood Safety Planner, Public Safety Section, Water Management Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks Jim Harries, Manager, Policy and Development, Insurance Bureau of Canada Henry Hengeveld, Science Advisor on Climate Change, Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada Rudolph Henkel, Director, Insurance - Risk Management, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Mike Hewson, Policy Advisor, Policy, Program & International Affairs Directorate, Environment Canada Paul Hunt, Senior Vice President, Swiss Reinsurance Company Canada Greg Jenish, Project Officer, Canadian Institute for Environmental Law & Policy Raimo Kallio, Head and Chief Engineer, Hydrotechnical Section, Ecosystems & Environmental Research Directorate, Environment Canada Grant Kelly, Policy Analyst & Project Director, Catastrophic Loss Mitigation, Insurance Bureau of Canada Eric Khan, M.B.A. Candidate, Faculty of Management and Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto Paul Kovacs, Vice President, Policy Development, Insurance Bureau of Canada Sonia Labatt, Associate Faculty Member, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto Dionne Gesink Law, Environmental Consultant, Cushman-Ball Environmental Ltd. Claude Lefrancois, Program Coordinator, Canadian Global Change Program, The Royal Society of Canada John Lynch, Executive Director of Development, Faculty of Arts & Science, University of Toronto John McKeman, Vice President, Environmental Group, Dale Intermediaries Ltd. John Newton, Principal, John Newton Associates Steve Osselton, Senior Vice President, Risk Services, Sedgwick Limited Alan W. Pang, Vice President, Treaty, BEP International Holding Inc. 9

14 Peter Pauly, Professor, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto * Janice Reiner, Vice President, Reinsurance & Risk Management, Co-operators General Insurance Co. Tony Reuvers, General Manager, Environmental Risk, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce * Angus Ross, President, SOREMA Management Inc. Wendy Saulesleja, Underwriter, Environmental Risks, Commerce & Industry Insurance Company of Canada Andreas Schwartze, Nacora Insurance Brokers Ltd. Steve Scott, Professor, Department of Geology, University of Toronto Luis Seco, Professor, Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto R Roger Street, Director, Environmental Adaptation Research Group, Environment Canada * Chris Tucker, Senior Scientific Advisor, Emergency Preparedness Canada Jean-Serge Vincent, Director, Terrain Sciences Division, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada * Rodney R. White, Director, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto Sue White, Manager, Association of Canadian Insurers * Judith Wilson, Manager, Environmental Database & Networking Initiative, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto * Members of Steering Committee of the Round Table 10

15 Ill//Il i^ifl^ `C^^ri^^ GF 85 C Coping with natural hazards in Canada : scientific, government and insurance industry... F255 o

16