Empowering Municipalities to Question UNSDG Programs: Key Considerations, Public Engagement, and Alternatives

Origins and Impacts Series (Part 4)

Gather 2030

Nov 27, 2024

Origins and Impacts Series: Empowering Municipalities to Question UNSDG Programs

Key Considerations, Public Engagement, and Alternatives

Municipal councils have often accepted programs like the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) and UN-driven official plans without fully questioning their implications. However, when scrutinized, these initiatives reveal significant costs, misaligned priorities, diminished public engagement, and viable alternative solutions. The core concerns surrounding these programs include their financial impact, questionable environmental assumptions, reduced transparency, and an underlying agenda driven by data collection and corporate interests.

Unanswered Questions About UNSDG Programs

What is the Cost of the PCP’s Five Milestones?

The PCP program requires municipalities to meet five milestones, including extensive data collection, setting emissions reduction targets, and implementing action plans. While the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Asset Management Program mandates that all municipal expenditures be viewed through a "climate lens," this approach disburses the costs of these programs across various municipal budgets, making it challenging to determine an accurate total cost of climate action initiatives.

Municipal councils should direct staff to:

Conduct a detailed cost analysis that separates expenditures related to climate action from those associated with traditional environmental stewardship responsibilities.
Compare climate action spending to investments in programs that address their community’s immediate needs, such as infrastructure maintenance, housing, and public safety.

Without clear accounting, municipalities risk overcommitting resources to global mandates at the expense of local priorities, perpetuating financial strain on taxpayers and limiting flexibility to address urgent community concerns.

What Does Net-Zero Mean for Municipalities?

Net-zero emissions often require expensive, sweeping changes to infrastructure, energy systems, and local economies. Yet, these goals fail to consider unique municipal factors, such as:

Canada’s vast carbon-absorbing forests, which already act as natural carbon sinks are not included in the net zero calculations.
The absence of innovative solutions like improving soil carbon content, which could naturally sequester our carbon emissions while enhancing soil health and agricultural productivity.

Are There No Local Alternatives to Costly Net-Zero Tech?

Community-Driven Alternatives

Canadian municipalities can achieve meaningful environmental progress by adopting locally focused, voluntary initiatives instead of rigid global mandates. These alternatives are cost-effective, practical, and respectful of local governance and property rights:

Pollution Prevention and Resource Conservation: Focus on improving air and water quality while protecting local habitats.
Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Use methods like rotational grazing to improve soil health, naturally sequester carbon, and support farmers.
Soil Regeneration: Increase soil carbon content from 2% to 10%, effectively storing carbon while enhancing farm productivity and water retention.
Forests as Carbon Sinks: Recognize Canada’s forests as natural carbon sinks and strengthen forest management for greater carbon sequestration.
Local Energy Efficiency Projects: Upgrade municipal infrastructure to save energy without the administrative burdens of global programs.
Resident-Led Initiatives: Support tree planting, reuse-it centers, and local farm and food programs that empower communities directly.
Public Engagement and Voluntary Programs: Ensure transparency and involve residents in decision-making to reflect community priorities.

By adopting these common-sense alternatives, municipalities can make environmental progress while maintaining autonomy, respecting property rights, and supporting fiscal sustainability.

How Much CO₂ Are We Responsible For?

Canada contributes approximately 1.5% of global CO₂ emissions.
CO₂ is not inherently a pollutant: It is a vital component of life on Earth, necessary for plant growth and ecosystem health.
Human activities contribute approximately 3–4% of global CO₂ emissions, equating to 0.0016% of atmospheric CO₂.

What Natural Factors Drive Climate Change?

Climate change is influenced by numerous natural factors, including:

Solar cycles
Volcanic activity
Ocean currents
Interglacial warming periods

These factors often dwarf the impact of human-generated CO₂, yet they are largely excluded from UNSDG narratives (A Rational Review of Climate Policy and Scientific Perspectives, 2024).

The Underlying Agenda of UNSDG Programs

Programs like PCP and other UNSDG initiatives prioritize extensive data collection over practical environmental solutions. This data includes energy use, waste patterns, and detailed information about municipal operations and residents’ activities. The ultimate purpose of this data raises several concerns:

Data Monetization: Collected data is often shared with ICLEI’s whose corporate sponsors have vested interests in selling green technologies and products.
Sales-Driven Goals: Ambitious targets often require municipalities to purchase specific technologies or services endorsed by ICLEI, benefiting private corporations rather than local communities.
Erosion of Privacy: Collecting sensitive data without explicit consent poses significant risks to residents and municipal operations.

Public Engagement: A Decline in Transparency and Accessibility

One of the most concerning aspects of UNSDG-aligned programs like the PCP framework is their impact on public engagement. By prioritizing international mandates over local input, these programs have led to reduced opportunities for residents to voice their concerns.

In Orillia, Ontario, concerned residents sought time to speak with the city council regarding their participation in the PCP program. Their request was formally denied in a letter from the council, which stated:

“The council of the corporation of the city of Orillia now considers its decision-making under the broader umbrella of United Nations directives.”

The letter further explained that the council’s alignment with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s interest in achieving Agenda 2030 rendered public consultations unnecessary. Instead, residents were directed to raise their concerns with Sustainable Orillia, a local non-governmental organization tasked with administering the PCP program (City of Orillia, 2024).

This situation highlights three key issues:

Reduced Democratic Accountability: By deferring decision-making to global or third-party entities, councils limit their direct accountability to residents.
Exclusion of Public Voices: Denying residents a platform to express concerns undermines the principles of open governance and community-driven policy.
Delegation to Unaccountable NGOs: Involving external organizations like Sustainable Orillia to manage public queries further distances local government from its constituents, eroding trust and transparency.

Such practices reflect a broader trend in municipalities engaged with UNSDG programs, where compliance with global mandates often takes precedence over meaningful local consultation.

Case Studies: Reclaiming Local Priorities

Peterborough County Official Plan
The Peterborough County Council recognized public concerns about a proposed UN-driven official plan that would have redirected growth to urban areas, reduced the tax base in rural townships, and imposed unnecessary land-use restrictions. In response, the council advocated for changes that better align with local priorities, ensuring that rural communities retain autonomy and development opportunities (Case Study: Peterborough County Official Plan, 2024).
Thorold Withdrawal from PCP Program
After being presented with concerns about the PCP program’s costs, privacy issues, and misalignment with local priorities, Thorold’s council voted 7-1 to withdraw. This decision restored autonomy and redirected resources to initiatives that reflect the community’s specific needs (Thorold Today, 2024).

Councils Withdraw in Three Easy Steps

Municipal councils participating in the FCM ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program have the option to withdraw at any time, allowing them to re-evaluate their environmental strategies and focus on local priorities. Withdrawing is a straightforward process that keeps community needs at the forefront.

Unsure if Your Municipality is Enrolled?

More than 500 councils participate in the PCP program. Check if your municipality is one of them here: PCP Membership Page.

Need Guidance on Moving the Motion?

We’re here to help you every step of the way! To discuss your council's options, book a session with the KICLEI Secretariat: Book a Meeting.

Councils: Withdraw in 3 Easy Steps

Download and Print the Withdrawal Resolution: Find the resolution template here: Withdrawal Resolution Template.
Adopt the Resolution Within Your Council: Present and pass the motion during a council meeting.
Notify the FCM of Your Withdrawal: Contact the FCM with the signed resolution to finalize your withdrawal.

Conclusion

UNSDG-driven programs often lead to significant financial burdens, misaligned priorities, and reduced transparency. As seen in cases like Orillia, Thorold, and Peterborough County, prioritizing international directives over local consultation can alienate residents and undermine democratic accountability. Empowering municipalities to question these frameworks, prioritize public engagement, and explore practical alternatives is essential for safeguarding autonomy, respecting community voices, and achieving environmental stewardship and holistic development rooted in local values.

📥 Download the full report with references here (PDF).