Risk and RACI: Defining Clear Roles

1. Risk and RACI: Defining Clear Roles July 15, 2014

2. Approach • Understand the Top level components and clear subcomponents of the Risk Management Process applied to IRMS. • Clearly bound the Knowledge/Evaluation and Monitoring functions • Socialize function and scale divisions for groups evaluating existing system roles (including review of previous work)

3. CSA ISO 31000 Risk Management

4. Steps/Roles for Risk Management

5. Establishing the Context Definition: Defining the external and internal parameters to be taken into account when managing risk. Setting the scope and risk criteria for the Risk Management Policy. IRMS Context: Provincial strategies, commitments, policies with desired outcomes. Accountable/Responsible: Policy Makers Consulted: • IRMS Partners • Internal and External stakeholders.

6. Risk Identification Definition: Process of finding, recognizing and describing risks. Note 1: Involves identification of risk sources, events, their causes and potential consequences; Note 2: Can involve historical data, theoretical data analysis, informed and expert opinions and stakeholder needs IRMS Context: Gathering the sources of knowledge that will be considered in the Land Use Planning Exercise. Includes Example: Groundwater Quality – Regional picture (spatial) and historical baseline and future trends forecast. Accountable: Land Use Planners Responsible: Knowledge Generators Historical Baseline Future Forecast Groundwater Quality Indicators Regional Knowledge and Context for Groundwater Quality Indicators 1950 2000 2050 Time

7. Risk Analysis • Definition: Process to comprehend the nature of risk and to determine the level of risk. • Note 1: Provides basis for Risk Evaluation and decisions about Risk Treatment • Note 2: Includes Risk Estimation • IRMS Context: Forecast scenarios on the likelihood that hazards may impact on groundwater quality and the potential consequences. Depict visually by populating a risk matrix. Accountable/Responsible: Land Use Planners Example: Threats to Groundwater Quality Hazards Consequences High Likelihood of Occurrence Medium Low Low Medium High Consequence

8. Risk Evaluation • Definition: Process of comparing the results of the Risk Analysis with Risk Criteria to determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude is acceptable or tolerable. • Note: Assists in the decision about Risk Treatment • IRMS Context: Decisions about what activities are acceptable and/or can be tolerated based on a range of controls: policy, management, regulatory tools, monitoring. High Intolerable Risk Level: Inadequate controls in place to reduce risk to acceptable level Tolerable Risk Level: Risks can be reduced with either current or future controls Likelihood of Occurrence Medium Acceptable Risk Level: Monitor and further reduce where practicable. Low Accountable/Responsible: Policy Makers Responsible: Land Use Planners Low Medium High Consequence

9. Risk Treatment Definition: Process to modify risk. • risk avoidance by deciding not to start or continue with the activity • taking or increasing risk in order to pursue an opportunity • removing the risk source • changing the likelihood; changing the consequences; sharing the risk with another party or parties • retaining risk by informed decision IRMS Context: *Decisions: Accountable: Policy Makers. Responsible: Land Use Planners Decisions on controls - strategies in regional plans environmental monitoring frameworks, regulatory, tools, policy. *Implementation: Accountable/Responsible: System Manager. Responsible: Regulators Implementing controls. Controls Hazards Consequences Reactive/Response Controls Preventative Controls

10. Monitor and Review Definition: Continual checking, supervising, critically observing or determining the status in order to identify change from the performance level required or expected. *Ambient: Accountable/Responsible: Knowledge Generators. Informed: Policy Makers, Regulators, Land Use Planners, Responders Ongoing monitoring evidence as to how the natural system is performing. *Performance: Accountable: System Manager. Responsible: Policy Makers, Regulators, Land Use Planners, Responders. Consulted: Knowledge Generators Ongoing review of the performance of the controls based on the ambient monitoring evidence.

11. Next Steps • Within KETT/AEMERA • Outside KETT

12. Within AEMERA • Build out understanding and vision for what are IRMS needs for Knowledge and Evaluation and Monitoring • Focus on three areas of Accountability/Responsibility • Risk Identification • Monitoring and Review • Communication and Consultation

13. Environmental Knowledge Requirements for Risk Identification LARP Sub-Themes LARP Themes Quality AIR Risk Analysis Process Acid Deposition Emissions LAND Disturbed Land Undisturbed Land Terrestrial Habitat Detailed List of indicators requiring knowledge and tailored monitoring WATER (surface and groundwater) Aquatic Habitat Quality Quantity BIODIVERSITY Biotic Community Species at Risk Wildlife (Terrestrial) Aquatic Life

15. Environmental Monitoring and Review Requirements LARP Sub-Themes LARP Themes Quality AIR Acid Deposition Emissions LAND Disturbed Land Undisturbed Land Risk Treatment Monitoring Plans Developed to Report against Regional Plan Indicators Terrestrial Habitat WATER (surface and groundwater) Aquatic Habitat Quality Quantity BIODIVERSITY Biotic Community Species at Risk Wildlife (Terrestrial) Aquatic Life

16. Environmental Communication and Consultation Requirements LARP Sub-Themes LARP Themes Quality AIR Acid Deposition Emissions LAND Disturbed Land Undisturbed Land Ambient Reporting (Both data and knowledge on Condition of Environment) Monitoring Plans Developed to Report against Regional Plan Indicators Terrestrial Habitat WATER (surface and groundwater) Aquatic Habitat Quality Quantity BIODIVERSITY Biotic Community Species at Risk Wildlife (Terrestrial) Aquatic Life

17. Outside KETT/AEMERA • Understanding Existing Capacity – Ask Demarcation group(s) to screen existing work in terms of functions first then scale. • Knowledge Generator vs. Knowledge user • Subject matter expertise vs. Process owner • Knowledge/Context vs. Response/Action

18. Outside KETT/AEMERA • Consider further building out RACI to look at functions within: • IRMS Partners • NRE Pod/GOA • Agencies and GOA-funded research and monitoring groups.

19. Decisions • Agree on use of ISO 31000 Risk Management Process and RACI approach and terminology for defining functions at IRMS level • AEMERA defined as the authoritative source for Environmental Knowledge for the Risk Identification process. • Continued work to build this out.