Summary of the Evaluation of the Geoscience to Keep Canada Safe Program

Relevance

The Program remains highly relevant to government objectives around public safety and emergency management. It is widely respected for its role as the primary provider of information on geo-hazards to the Government of Canada. The subject matter expertise found within the Program was a valuable asset for Canada in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and emergency management (EM) efforts. However, Canada’s implementation of the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015 and Canada’s Emergency Management Strategy (2017) introduced a whole of society approach to disaster risk reduction. This approach increased the demand for related geo-science and hazard risk assessment beyond those with whom the Program had long-standing relationships, which is expected to continue – at least in the mid-term – with implications for the GKCS. As expectations rise, the Program should look to its capacity to meet the increased demand as its role evolves.

Progress on Outcomes

Overall, the Program contributes to the understanding of geo-hazards to a great extent. Stakeholders and decision-makers use the Program information in their decisions. Stakeholders acknowledge the strength of the contribution not only for themselves, but also on increased understanding among those responsible for making decisions. The Program experienced challenges in progressing on outcomes that involved a higher need for engaging with stakeholders whose needs for information were increasing, but who were outside the technical and research groups the program was used to dealing with.

The GKCS Program was implicated in collaborative efforts due to the need for multidisciplinary tables to address gaps in knowledge transfer and the critical fact that expertise in Canada largely resided within NRCan. While there was significant collaboration, plans to reduce information gaps often lacked further development and resources to be implemented. However, some of this activity fell outside of the responsibility and mandate of NRCan.

Stakeholders expressed cautious optimism that Canada was ultimately more resilient but acknowledged that work was needed to develop more robust indicators for measuring resilience.

Design and Delivery

The Program was well-designed to support outcomes related to research and monitoring. Projects were delivered on time and on budget and activities reflected existing stakeholder needs. However, the Program was less well-designed to support the whole of society approach to disaster risk reduction arising from factors largely inherent to structures outside the LMS. Evidence suggests that information was not easily shared among other NRCan programming with similar goals in public safety and resilience. NRCan could improve coordination to avoid confusion and ensure common approaches to reduce burden at the local level, where there is little capacity to conduct hazard identification. A more permanent table for sharing information on disaster risk reduction and emergency management could be established within NRCan to address strategic cross-cutting issues related to DRR and EM programming.

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)

The Program made strides in integrating EDI considerations into its activities, but there is more to do. Suggested improvements mostly relate to consideration of Indigenous populations, including engaging with communities to share research findings and knowledge affecting local communities, and enhancing opportunities for employment in geo-hazards research among Indigenous people.

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

The evaluation identified several practices within the Program that facilitated effective operations (e.g., mid-year and year-end reports for research projects that assisted in tracking project performance, CHIS dashboard reporting). Canada’s membership in the Global Earthquake Model Foundation involved multiple partners, which stretched the resources of multiple stakeholders and established grounds for closer collaboration within the country.

The evaluation identified several lessons learned. Firstly, collaboration and relationship-building take time and requires dedicated capacity. Taking this into account during the planning phase of activities improved uptake of information. Additionally, poorly defined roles in overlapping areas of NRCan limits intra-departmental interaction and creates confusion among stakeholders. This reduces opportunities for collaboration, creates confusion regarding reporting responsibilities where objectives overlap, and can lead to an inefficient allocation of NRCan resources.