Cities in Canada Are Not Prepared for Climate Change Says New Study

December 5, 2018 – A new research paper evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of climate change planning in 63 of Canada’s most populous urban centers indicates weak public engagement and a heavy emphasis on risk mitigation over adaptation.

Mitigation equates with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation addresses strategies focused on minimizing the physical impacts of global warming such as hardening urban infrastructure to deal with extreme precipitation and sea level rise.

The study, written by Dave Guyadeen of the University of Guelph, and Jason Thistlethwaite and Daniel Henstra from the University of Waterloo, notes that cities since the mid-1990s have recognized the importance of combating climate change through local acts. As a result, many have developed climate change action plans. It is good to have plans but strategies that are non-binding, or that characterize actions in generalities are problematic and do not serve the interest of those who live in these urban centers.

The research shows that plan quality is generally lacking in Canadian municipalities. It describes efforts by municipalities to be highly uneven and lacking statutory obligations. Compared to European cities one could describe Canadian urban climate change planning as seriously weak. Why is this? Can it be blamed on the multi-jurisdictional nature of Canada’s federal system where there is a national government, ten provinces, three territories, and where municipal powers operate under provincial statutes? So if a province doesn’t mandate a municipality to develop a climate change action plan and provide the appropriate financial resources to achieve the plan, does one get developed? So far it appears that only one province, Nova Scotia, has required municipalities to develop climate change action plans focused on mitigation and adaptation.

Another body within Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), which operates as an independent membership-based organization focused on lobbying both the provinces and federal government on behalf of its 2,000 members and 91% of Canada’s population, offers a range of services focused on climate change. In its 2017-18 Annual Progress Report, it notes that FCM sponsored and hosted events in over 1,100 member communities, approved $13.4 million CDN for 64 climate action initiatives, gave $1.7 million to 19 municipalities to integrate climate change goals in asset management planning, and approved more than $2.4 million in grants to 12 organizations to provide adaptation training to 72 municipalities. In the overall scheme of things, the amounts mentioned here are a pittance of what needs to be spent by Canadian municipalities to address climate change mitigation and adaptation.

In analyzing 78 specific municipalities including the largest as well as smaller urban centers the study findings indicate that many urban centers do not have an informed fact-based decision-making process for determining climate change action planning. The majority had baseline greenhouse gas emissions data by source, as well as emissions forecasting, but “almost all plans failed to include an assessment of the municipality’s vulnerability to specific climate change impacts.”

• Of the 78, only 7 could identify geographic vulnerabilities to climate change.
• 11 plans identified vulnerable demographic groups.
• 12 plans specified which industries in their jurisdiction were vulnerable.
• 26 plans (42% of the 78) included information on specific climate change impacts within their municipalities.

In terms of establishing adaptation and mitigation goals, many of the municipal plans proved inadequate.

• 38 plans set short-term GHG emission targets.
• 20 plans included long-term GHG targets.
• 31 plans mentioned adaptation with no specifics.
• 20 of the plans were specific about vulnerable areas where urban development would need to be reduced.

In terms of policy, the majority plans attempted to develop GHG emission reductions targeting specific sectors, included promoting renewable energy initiatives, and energy conservation, and addressed transportation, and land and water use.

• 51 plans focused on communication to educate citizens.
• 24 plans addressed food and agricultural challenges.
• 13 plans looked at hazard reduction.

In terms of implementation, almost no plans specifically centrally-coordinated this important aspect. Instead, implementation strategies were distributed to subject-specific initiatives and policies.

• 60 plans set out general priorities.
• 50 included timelines and financial tools to support implementation.

But “nearly all of the plans lacked specifics about processes and protocols to actually implement the plan in practice.”

Although the majority of plans established GHG emission reduction goals, only half including monitoring of the emissions.

And in terms of consultation, only 25 included the participation of the general public in the planning process. In fact only 22 plans mentioned the purpose of broader participation in planning.

The study noted that the emphasis on mitigation over adaptation is a result of taking the easy way out. Mitigation is easier to define. Adaptation requires fact collecting and analysis. And as for implementation and monitoring, municipalities in Canada are missing the boat with a lack of priority planning including assigning responsibilities, creating adequate funding, and developing timetables for every adaptation action.

Finally, the lack of public engagement on climate change action plans is a major deficiency in most municipal planning. The lack of education aimed at wide dissemination of information related to the reasons for mitigation and adaptation prioritization may explain why some of the provinces within Canada are at cross purposes with the federal government on the issue of climate change action. Whereas the federal government is implementing a national mitigation target and action through instituting a price on carbon pollution, some of the provinces are challenging its right to do so while confusing the public with a smattering of vague plans with even more vague implementation strategies.

I want to thank Professor Thistlethwaite for sharing the content of the plan with me so that I could summarize much of it for my readers. As always, your comments on this and other postings here at 21st Century Tech blog are appreciated. And I promise to read and answer as indicated, all of them.