Environment Canada’s
Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan
2008–2011

May 2008

Audit and Evaluation Branch

| TOC | Previous |


Appendix B – Risk Assessment
for the 2008–09 to 2010–11
Audit and Evaluation Plan

February 2008


Audit and Evaluation Branch


Abbreviations used in this report

AE
Audit and Evaluation
CESD
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
DEC
Departmental Evaluation Committee
EAAC
External Advisory Audit Committee
EC
Environment Canada
HR
Human Resource
IM/IT
Information Management/Information Technology
MAF
Management and Accountability Framework
NGOs
Non-governmental organization
OAG
Office of the Auditor General
OCG
Office of the Comptroller General
OGD
Other government departments
OPG
Outcome Project Grouping
OPP
Outcome Project Plan
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat

Table of Contents

1.0 PURPOSE
2.0 METHODOLOGY
3.0 FINDINGS
    3.1 Key Risk Areas
    3.2 Top Ranked Risk Areas
4.0 CONCLUSION
Annex A – List of Documents Reviewed
Annex B – Risk Assessment Rating Scale
Annex C – Risk Assessment Results and Ratings

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the risk assessment conducted by the Audit and Evaluation Branch (AEB) as part of the 2008–09 to 2010–11 audit and evaluation planning process. The results of the analysis were presented to the External Advisory Audit Committee (EAAC) in January 2008.

The assessment of risks helps to identify and prioritize potential audit engagements and evaluation projects. Consultations with departmental Boards will help to formalize the AE Plan.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

For this year’s risk assessment, the Audit and Evaluation Branch did not use one single basis to identify risks but looked at risks in a different way. More specifically, the assessment included conducting an environmental scan to identify key areas and activities that could significantly influence overall management priorities, performance, and achievement of corporate objectives.  

The assessment began with a comprehensive review of corporate-level information from many different sources including the following:

Annex A provides a more extensive list of the documents reviewed.

This ensured that the entire universe of potential risk areas was included in the review and that a variety of perspectives of risks was considered.

Risk areas were identified as either related to “enabling activities” or “policy and program activities.” The latter refer to actual program and policy activities for delivering on departmental environmental outcomes such as clean air and biodiversity whereas the former refer to those activities that support policy and program activities such as finance, information management, information technology and human resources.

A rating scale of high, medium and low was developed to assess the impact and the likelihood of each risk. For the purpose of assessing the impact, the following five criteria were used:

A more detailed description of the rating scale is included in Annex B.

Key enabling activity and policy and program activity risk areas that emerged from the analysis were organized by the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) elements. Key risk areas were then superimposed on a risk map depicting their level of impact and likelihood using the TBS Risk Management Model presented in Annex B, Part C.

The audit and evaluation teams and senior management were consulted on the results of the risk assessment for their feedback and validation.

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 Key Risk Areas

The following table presents the 29 key risk areas that emerged from the risk assessment organized under the 10 elements of the MAF. A more detailed description of the risk areas and ranking is provided in Annex C.

 
 Risk Title  Impact Likelihood
 Policy and Programs
 PP1 Air Quality and Climate Change H  H
 PP2 National and International Commitments  H  H
 PP3 Water Quality  H  M
 PP4 Toxic Substances  H  M
 PP5 Greening Operations  M  H
 PP6 Biodiversity  M  M
 PP7 Partnership Arrangements/Agreements  M  M
 PP8 Collaboration with NGOs and Provincial Governments  M  L
 Citizen-Focused Service
 CFS1 Communications  M  H
 CFS2 Client Services  M  M
 People
 PPL1 Occupational Health and Safety  H  H
 PPL2 Human Resource Capacity  H  H
 PPL3 Employment Equity  H  M
 PPL4 Human Resource Planning  M  H
 PPL5 Official Languages  M  M
 Risk Management
 RM1 Risk Approach and Monitoring  M  M
 Stewardship
 ST1 Financial Reporting (including Audited Financial Statements)  H  H
 ST2 Financial Planning/Budgeting  H  H
 ST3 Financial Capacity to Deliver on Mandate  H  H
 ST4 Assets Management  H  H
 ST5 Information Technology  H  H
 ST6 Information Management  H  H
 ST7 Contracting  M  M
 Accountability
 AC1 Accountability and Responsibility  H  M
 Governance and Strategic Directions
 G1 Structure and Organizational Stability  M  M
 G2 Strategic Directions  M  L
 Results and Performance
 RP1 Performance Measurement  M  H
 Public Service Values
 PSV1 Values & Ethics  H  L
 Learning, Innovation and Change Management
 LICM1 Change Management  M  M

3.2 Top Ranked Risk Areas

The following risk level maps illustrate the level of impact and likelihood of occurrence for key risk areas identified for policy and program activities as well as for enabling activities. Colour coding on the maps demonstrate the risk tolerance. It is important to note that the rating of risk areas did not take into consideration residual risks, i.e., the risk remaining after response or mitigation. The analysis revealed that of the 29 key risk areas identified, 18 are rated as high risk areas. They are as follows:

Risk Level Map for Policy and Program Activities

Of the eight key risk areas identified for policy and program activities, five appear as top risk areas. 

 
Impact
Risk Distribution
High
Serious impact
(problems would be costly and difficult to repair, if reparable)
 
  • PP3 Water Quality
  • PP4 Toxic Substances
  • PP1 Air Quality & Climate Change
  • PP2 National & International Commitments
Medium
Significant impact (problems are manageable with some effort and investment)
  • PP8 Collaboration with NGOs & Provincial Governments
  • PP6 Biodiversity
  • PP7 Partnership Arrangements/Agreements
  • PP5 Greening Operations
Low
Little Impact
     
  Low
Risks are unlikely  to occur
Medium 
Risks may occur
High
Risks likely to occur
 
Likelihood

Risk Level Map for Enabling Activities

Of the 21 key risk areas identified for enabling activities, 13 appear as top risk areas.

 
Impact Risk Distribution
High
Serious impact (problems would be costly and difficult to repair, if reparable)
  • PSV1 Values & Ethics
  • PPL3 Employment Equity
  • AC1 Accountability & Responsibility
  • PPL1 Occupational Health & Safety
  • PPL2 Human Resource Capacity
  • ST1 Financial Reporting
  • ST2 Financial Planning/Budgeting
  • ST3 Financial Capacity
  • ST4 Assets Management
  • ST5 Information Technology
  • ST6 Information Management
Medium
Significant impact (problems are manageable with some effort and investment)
  • G2 Strategic Directions
  • CFS2 Client Services
  • PPL5 Official Languages
  • RM1 Risk Approach & Monitoring
  • ST7 Contracting
  • G1 Structure & Organizational Stability
  • LICM1 Change Management
  • CFS1 Communications
  • PPL4 Human Resource Planning
  • RP1 Performance Measurement
Low
Little Impact
     
  Low
Risks are unlikely to occur
Medium
Risks may occur
High
Risks likely to occur
Likelihood
 
Red High Risk Zone Exposure Unacceptable
Unavoidable risk requires senior management attention. This risk should be avoided where possible
Yellow Medium Risk Zone Exposure Exists - Acceptable with caution
Acceptable risk if it is mitigated effectively.
Green Low Risk Zone Exposure Acceptable
Existing level of risk is considered tolerable. Effective risk management is in place.

Note: Risks depicted are grouped by MAF elements but not in order of priority or importance.

The following tables provide a description of the 18 highest risk areas related to policy and program activities and enabling activities. It also provides a number of existing measures and strategies that could help manage/mitigate some of these risk areas.

Key Risk Areas for Program and Policy Activities

 Risk Area  Risk Description Comment
Air Quality and Climate Change
Reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions
  • Programming and regulatory complexity and reputation risk.
  • Risk of air pollution for the environment and human health
  • Risk for biodiversity, forests and freshwater ecosystems
  • Evaluation of the Border Air Quality Strategy: Air Quality Forecasting Component currently under way
  • Evaluation of the Smog-Causing Emission Regulation in Transportation Sector under way
  • Clean Air Regulatory Agenda – Interdepartmental Evaluation Plan being developed
  • CESD Audit on Air Emissions planned for Fall 2008
  • Comprehensive interdepartmental climate change evaluation plan being developed. Evaluations will begin in 2009–10.
National and International Commitments
Delivering on national and international commitments/ negotiations
  • Risk of not meeting national and international commitments could damage the Department’s reputation
  • Evaluation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation conducted in 2006–07
  • International Strategy evaluation included in previous plan for future years
  • Evaluation of the Bilateral Cooperation Program under the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol conducted in 2006–07
  • CESD Audit Report on International Environmental Agreements will be tabled in March 2008 (mainly regarding reporting results)
Water Quality
Ensuring safe and secure water supply
  • Risk of not having adequate or sufficient science-based advice on water quality and quantity for decision making could impact human and ecosystem health as well as the economy
  • Interdepartmental evaluation of the Oceans Action Plan recently completed
  • Water Strategy evaluation included in previous plan for future years
Toxic Substances
Protecting Canadians and their environment from dangerous chemicals/harmful substances
  • Risk for human health and the environment if toxic and other harmful substances are not assessed and managed effectively
  • Risk of not having pollution information to make available to Canadians to aid in decision making and take action
  • Chemicals Management Plan – Interdepartmental Evaluation Plan under way
  • Interdepartmental Evaluation on Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan starting
  • CESD Audit Report on Managing Selected Substances under CEPA 1999 will be tabled in March 2008
Greening Operations
Demonstrating leadership in greening operations
  • Risk of not demonstrating how efforts contribute to the Sustainable Development Strategy
  • Risk of not having clear direction and priorities
  • AEB was consulted by Public Works and Government Services Canada regarding their preparation of the Evaluation Framework for the Policy on Green Procurement
  • CESD Audit Report on Greening Government Operations will be tabled in March 2008
Occupational Health and Safety
Ensuring occupational health, safety and wellness
  • Risk of non compliance with policies and regulations puts the health and safety of staff at risk
  • Risk of potential accidents and liabilities
  • Concerns expressed by senior management and identified as high risk area for the past 2 years
  • 1996 Occupational Health and Safety audit had to be closed because recommendations were out of date
  • Environmental Technology Center OSH audit needs to be followed up
Human Resource Capacity
Having the human resources capacity to deliver on government and departmental priorities
  • Risk of not having adequate capacity to deliver on expectations, obligations and requirements, resulting in loss of credibility, media and public criticism
  • Environment Canada and Branches HR Plans and Strategies developed
Financial Reporting
Ensuring sound departmental stewardship through effective financial controls
  • Risk of not having auditable financial statements by 2009
  • Risk of not providing assurance on financial controls
  • Risk of not providing managers with quality and reliable information for decision making
  • Audited Financial Statement Readiness Assessment conducted and identified significant weaknesses, including insufficient coverage of internal audit in this area
  • Financial Audit Plan under way
  • Audit of Decision Support Systems under way
  • Ongoing audits (past and forthcoming)
Financial Planning/Budgeting
Ensuring timely budget is clearly linked with organizational objectives
  • Risk of not handling financial management of temporary funding (fenced funding) effectively
  • Risk that delayed budget approvals and allocations impact operating programs and activities
  • Part of the Financial Audit Plan under way
Financial Capacity
Having financial capacity to deliver on departmental mandate
  • Risk of not having sufficient funds available to carry out mandate, programs and operations
  • Risk of ending temporary funding for programs
  • Audit on financial coding conducted in 2005
  • Part of the Financial Audit Plan under way
Assets Management
Protecting and managing assets effectively
  • Risk that assets are not being managed effectively
  • Risk that assets are not protected and life-cycle managed
  • Risk of not having an effective and consistent capital budgeting process
  • Risk that access to assets records and information is not controlled and secured
  • Inventory and asset management identified as a major issue in the Audited Financial Statement Readiness Assessment
Information Technology
Ensuring critical information systems for mission-critical continue to operate without interruption
  • Risk of not having appropriate system application controls
  • Risk of not having processes and procedures to support continuity of systems
  • Risks related to the absence of a system to integrate environmental monitoring and environmental prediction
  • Risk that sudden loss of data due to system failure or termination of service by a supplier could impact the safety and well-being of Canadians
  • IM/IT Audit Plan completed in July 2007
  • Audit of Technology Infrastructure Directorate planned for 2008–09
  • IT Security Audit under way
Information Management
Effective management and use of information
  • Risk of not having a global departmental approach for information management
  • Risk that information management activities are not aligned to departmental priorities
  • Risk that information is not properly retained and not maintained in accordance with laws and regulations
  • IM/IT Audit Plan completed in July 2007
  • Information Management Review (2007) and previous IM audit (2001) identified areas requiring improvements
Employment Equity
Improving employment equity representation
  • Risk of non compliance with the employment equity legislation
  • Risk of not providing an inclusive and supportive workplace
  • Employment Equity Audit under way
  • Environment Canada and Branches HR Plans and Strategies developed
  • Canadian Human Rights Commission plans a follow up on a previous audit
Accountability and Responsibility
Effective decision making and accountability structure/processes
  • Risk that unclear understanding of roles and responsibilities under new governance structure could result in organizational confusion
  • Risk that authority, accountability and responsibility are not clear, communicated, understood, accepted and acknowledged
  • Recurring area of concern for the past two years
Communications
Providing effective, efficient and timely communication
  • Risk of not having lines of communication with stakeholders to ensure access to their feedback for consideration in strategic and operational planning
  • Risk of ineffective and inconsistent internal communication vehicles and messages
  • Risk of not having open and effective channels for internal communication and feedback
  • Internal communication plan being developed
Human Resource Planning
Understanding and identifying current and future human resources needs
  • Risk associated with not having departmental long-term HR plan to address recruitment, retention, corporate knowledge, retirement, etc.
  • Environment Canada and Branches HR Plans and Strategies developed
Performance Measurement
Measuring performance and reporting results
  • Risk that performance measurement is not being carried out
  • Risk that programs cannot demonstrate effectiveness
  • Risk of not effectively using performance information for decision making
  • Recurring area of major concern for a number of years within Environment Canada and across government

4.0 CONCLUSION

The results of the risk assessment suggest that the preliminary list of potential audit engagements and evaluation projects that will be recommended for the next three years should take into consideration the high risk areas. At the same time, it should be recognized that some of these risks are being managed.

Consultations were also held with members of departmental Boards to validate the results of the risk assessment, discuss the potential list of audit engagements and evaluation projects and to obtain their feedback on priority areas. This process ensures that the resources of the Audit and Evaluation Branch are effectively allocated to offer the greatest value to the Department.

It should be noted that the focus of the Audit and Evaluation Plan may change during the course of the year to respond to internal/external influences or evolving priorities.

Annex A – List of Documents Reviewed

Annex B – Risk Assessment Rating Scale

a) Measures of the Impact

Risk Criteria IMPACT
High Medium Low
Materiality
  • Financial and program expenditures
  • Large costs >$50M/yr or >15% of A-base
  • Medium costs>$10M–$50M/yr or 5–15% of A-base
  • Small costs <$10M/yr or <5% of A-base
Reputational
  • Public/media interest or expectations
  • Corporate reputation
  • Domestic, international reputation
  • Political factors
  • Outside parties (news media, citizen groups, general public) have shown a major interest in the area
  • Significant loss of client group trust
  • Public or media outcry for removal of Minister and/or departmental officials
  • Strong criticism by agencies (e.g., OAG, CESD, TBS.)
  • Outside parties (news media, citizen groups, general public) have shown moderate interest in the area
  • Some loss of client group trust
  • Some unfavourable media attention
  • Some unfavourable observation by agencies (e.g., OAG, CESD, TBS.)
  • Outside parties (news media, citizen groups, general public) have shown little interest in the area
  • Minor setback in building of client group trust
  • No apparent media attention
  • No criticism by agencies (e.g., OAG, CESD, TBS.)
Complexity
  • Complexity of internal operations
  • Multiple partners involved
    (e.g., horizontal cooperation with OGDs,
    Agencies, Provinces, Territories, NGOs)
  • Shared accountabilities
  • Shared attribution
  • Decentralization/
    centralization (e.g., possibility of regional variation)
  • Difficult and complex operations involving multiple internal
    and external partners,
    mostly external (OGDs, Agencies, NGOs, etc.)
  • Operations mostly decentralized at more than five locations
  • Slightly complex operations involving mostly internal
    (Environment Canada) partners
    and very few external partners
  • Operations decentralized at two to five locations
  • Simple and straight forward operations with no partners
  • Operations housed at one location
Damage & Liability
  • Damage to heath and well-being of employees
  • Damage to health and well-being of Canadians
  • Level of safety
  • Serious injury (e.g., death or permanent disability)
  • High probability of liabilities
  • Loss of major asset(s) >$1M
  • Serious environmental damage
  • Serious violation of law (e.g., Canada Labour Code)
  • Moderate injury/illness
  • Some risk of liabilities
  • Loss of asset(s) $100K-$1M
  • Violation of law (e.g., Canada Labour Code, Criminal Code)
  • Environmental damage
  • Disclosure of sensitive information
  • First aid treatment
  • Little risk of incurring liabilities
  • Loss of asset(s) <$100K
  • Temporary environmental effect
  • Disclosure of personal information
Capacity to Manage and Deliver
  • HR capacity
  • Program integrity issues
  • Organization has history of weakness/difficulty in relevant area
  • Program exceeds organization’s HR capacity or unknown effect on HR
  • Known program integrity issues
  • Organization lacks experience/
    capacity in relevant area
  • Program stretches human resources
  • Potential program integrity issues
  • Organization has experience/
    demonstrates capacity to deliver
  • Program has adequate human resources
  • No program integrity issues

b) Measures of Likelihood

 LIKELIHOOD  DESCRIPTION
High  The risk is likely to occur, despite current risk management practices in place.
Medium  The risk has a moderate probability of occurrence.
Low   The risk is unlikely to occur, given its nature and current risk management practices in place.

c) Risk Management Model

Impact Risk Management Actions
High
Serious impact (problems would be costly and difficult to repair, if reparable)
Considerable management required Must manage and monitor risks Extensive management essential
Medium
Significant impact (problems are manageable with some effort and investment)
Risks may be worth accepting with monitoring Management effort worthwhile Management effort required
Low
Little Impact
Accept risks Accept, but monitor risks Manage and monitor risks
  Low
Risks are unlikely to occur
Medium
Risks may occur
High
Risks likely to occur
Likelihood
 
Red High Risk Zone Exposure Unacceptable
Unavoidable risk requires senior management attention. This risk should be avoided where possible
Yellow Medium Risk Zone Exposure Exists - Acceptable with caution
Acceptable risk if it is mitigated effectively.
Green Low Risk Zone Exposure Acceptable
Existing level of risk is considered tolerable. Effective risk management is in place.

Source – Integrated Risk Management Implementation Guide, TBS

Annex C – Risk Assessment Results and Ratings

 Risk Title  Risk Description  Impact  Likelihood
 Policy and Programs
PP1 Air Quality
  • Poor air quality is a serious threat to biodiversity, forests and freshwater ecosystems.
  • Hazardous air pollutants such as mercury can be deposited into water and pose risks to wildlife and humans.
  • High risk for the environment and human health if not managed.
 H  H
PP2 Water Quality
  • Risk of not having sufficient quantities of high-quality water necessary to human and ecosystem health. Impact on Canada’s economy such as agriculture, pulp and paper, oil and gas, electric power generation and transportation, as well as tourism and other recreational uses.
  • Risk that decision makers and resource managers will not have adequate or sufficient science-based advice on the impacts and risks to water quality, quantity and sustainable use, including long-term infrastructure costs and those related to urban growth and economic development in Canada.
 H  H
PP3 National and International Commitments
  • Risk that not meeting our national and international commitments could damage the Department’s reputation.
 H  H
PP4 Occupational Health and Safety
  • Risk of non compliance with policies and regulations puts the health and safety of staff at risk.
  • Risk of potential accidents and liabilities
 H  H
PP5 Toxic Substances
  • Risk for human health and the environment if toxic and other harmful substances are not assessed and managed effectively.
  • Risk of not having pollution information to make available to Canadians to aid in decision making and take action.
 H  M
PP6 Greening Operations
  • Risk of not demonstrating how efforts contribute to the Sustainable Development Strategy
  • Risk of not having clear direction and priorities.
 M  H
PP7 Biodiversity
  • Risk that not meeting departmental commitments and legal requirements (migratory bird species, species at risk, etc.) could lead to population declines and impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem health. .
 M  M
PP8 Partnership Arrangements/Agreements
  • Complexity of partnership arrangements/ agreements, if not managed effectively, could result in fragmented efforts, decreased cooperation and consensus.
 M  M
PP9 Collaboration with NGOs and Provincial Governments
  • Low collaboration with NGOs
  • Low collaboration with other federal government departments
 M  L
 Citizen-Focused Service
CFS1 Communications
  • Risk of not having lines of communication with stakeholders for consideration of their feedback in strategic and operational planning.
  • Risk of ineffective and inconsistent internal communication vehicles and messages.
  • Risk of not having open and effective channels for internal communication and feedback.
 M  H
CFS2 Client Services
  • Risk that the organization does not have an integrated approach to client services.
  • Risk that the organization does not provide its clients with easy access to departmental services.
 M  M
 People
PPL1 Employment Equity
  • Risk of non compliance with employment equity legislation.
  • Risk of not providing an inclusive and supportive workplace.
 H  H
PPL2 Human Resource Capacity
  • Risk of not having adequate capacity to deliver on expectations, obligations and requirements, resulting in loss of credibility, media and public criticism.
 M  H
  • Risk of having inadequate corporate memory transfer among middle managers and employees.
 M  H
  • Risk that insufficient recruitment of specialized employees with advanced education and training will impact program delivery
H  H
  • Risk of having managers/supervisors not trained in employee management.
M M
  • Risk related to lack of recognition, absence of informal recognition and formal activities being mismanaged, resulting in employees not feeling valued by the Department
M  H
PPL3 Human Resource Planning
  • Risk associated with not having departmental long-term human resources planning to address recruitment, retention, corporate knowledge, retirements, etc.
 M  H
PPL4 Official Languages
  • Risk of non compliance with official languages legislation
  • Risk of not providing an inclusive and supportive workplace.
 M  M
 Risk Management
RM1 Risk Approach and Monitoring
  • Absence of a systematic and documented approach to risk management could result in a lack of focus and under funding of more important priorities.
 M  M
  • Risk that there is no independent oversight to monitor and provide assurance on the quality of risk management and due diligence in risk decision making.
M  M
  • Risk that management does not identify the risks that may preclude the achievement of its objectives.
L  L
 Stewardship
ST1 Financial Reporting (including Audited Financial Statements)
  • Risk of not providing managers with quality and reliable information to make decisions and prepare budgets.
  • Risk of not having auditable financial statements by 2009.
  • Risk of not providing assurance on financial controls.
 H  H
ST2 Financial Planning/Budgeting
  • Risk associated with the handling and transparency of financial management of TB submission funding (ring fenced funding)/sunsetting programs.
  • Risk that there is no formal process in place to challenge the assumptions and related resources allocations within the budget.
  • Risk that delayed budget approval and allocations impacts operating programs and activities.
 H  H
ST3 Financial Capacity to Deliver on Mandate
  • Risk that the Department will not be able to meet its mandate given its budget and the growing public expectations.
  • Impact of Environment Canada’s shift from small regulatory department to larger and more complex regulatory system, and its ability to deliver.
  • Risk associated with ending temporary/sunsetting program funding on program’s capacity to continue serving the needs of that program.
 H  H
ST4 Assets Management
  • Risk that assets are not being managed effectively.
  • Risk that assets are not protected and life-cycle managed.
  • Risk of not having an effective and consistent capital budgeting process.
  • Risk that access to assets records and information is not controlled and secured.
  • Risk that assets and records do not match.
 H  H
ST5 Information Technology
  • Risk of not having appropriate system application controls (logical access controls to systems, data…).
  • Risk of not having processes and procedures to support the continuity of systems and information.
  • Absence of a system to integrate environmental monitoring and environmental prediction.
  • Risks related to a sudden loss of data due to a system failure or a termination of service by a supplier.
 H  H
ST6 Information Management
  • Risk that information management activities are not aligned to departmental priorities.
  • Risk of not having a global departmental approach for information management.
  • Risk that information is not properly retained (as evidence in evaluations which use such information)
  • Risk of not having accurate or easy access to human resources information on employees.
  • Risk that records and information are not maintained in accordance with laws and regulations.
 H  H
ST7 Contracting
  • Risk that management has not established processes to identify, solicit, evaluate and manage third party contracts (compliance with TB policies, monitoring.).
  • Risk that contracting processes are not effective or efficient.
 M  M
 Accountability
AC1 Accountability and Responsibility
  • Risk of unclear understanding of roles and responsibilities under the new governance structure resulting in organizational confusion.
  • Risk that authority, accountability and responsibility are not clear, communicated, understood, accepted and acknowledged.
  • Risk of not having formally defined accountabilities in support of collaborative initiatives.
 H  M
 Governance and Strategic Directions
G1 Structure and Organizational Stability
  • Risk of not having a clear and effective organizational structure that is established and documented.
  • Instability is affecting the future of the Department, i.e., making Environment Canada an unattractive place to work, and is having negative effects on employees.
  • Too much organizational change has become a major source of self-induced risk.
 M  M
G2 Strategic Directions
  • Lack of leadership and direction at all levels in the Department. Leadership not being delegated downward to managers and supervisors impacts the morale of their teams.
  • Risk that strategic directions and objectives are not communicated and aligned with mandate, and operational plans.
 M  L
 Results and Performance
RP1 Performance Measurement
  • Risk of not effectively using performance information for decision making.
  • Risk that management has not identified planned results linked to organizational objectives.
  • Risk that management has not identified appropriate performance measures linked to planned results.
  • Risk that performance measurement is not being done. Risk to evaluation. Risk to programs if cannot demonstrate effectiveness.
 M  H
Public Service Values
PSV1 Values & Ethics
  • Risk of not respecting the organization’s integrity and ethical values.
  • Risk associated with employees having a low sense of ethics.
 H  L
 Learning, Innovation and Change Management
LICM1 Change Management
  • Too much organizational change had become a major source of self-induced risk.
  • Risk of not assessing the effectiveness of Department’s change management strategy/plan and making the necessary adjustments.
  • Risk that management support to change management is not demonstrated in performance agreement.
  • Risk of not having clear commitments to continuous improvement and innovation.
 M  M

6 The latest version of departmental OPGs and OPPs are dated October/November 2005.

7 Risk Assessment included the analysis of all departmental OPGs and OPPs.

| TOC | Previous |