Recommendation to Withdraw from the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program

Recommendation to Withdraw from the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program

Prepared for: Canadian Municipal Councils
Date: August 9, 2024
By: Margaret Hope Braun, Advocate for Local Sustainability

---

Introduction

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program is an initiative that encourages Canadian municipalities to adopt measures aimed at addressing climate change at the local level. However, participation in this program presents several challenges and risks that may not align with the best interests of Canadian municipalities and their residents. This report recommends that municipalities re-evaluate and consider withdrawing from the PCP program to better prioritize local autonomy, energy security, and practical environmental stewardship.

Purpose

This report highlights significant concerns related to data collection and privacy, financial burdens, local governance autonomy, ethical considerations, and the impact on various sectors including housing, agriculture, and construction. It recommends that Canadian municipalities withdraw from the PCP program and instead develop locally driven environmental strategies that align with the unique needs and values of their communities.

Background on the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program

The PCP program, launched in 1994, is a collaborative initiative between FCM and ICLEI, supported by the Government of Canada. Its roots can be traced back to the broader sustainable development agenda promoted by the United Nations, particularly the Brundtland Commission's report that advocated for public control over land use to achieve sustainability goals. The program is structured around five milestones that include extensive data collection, setting emissions reduction targets, and implementing local action plans. While the program is voluntary, its adoption by over 520 municipalities across Canada has significant implications for local governance and autonomy.

Key Concerns

Geographic and Environmental Context

• Canada’s Geographic Context: Policies related to CO₂ reduction must consider Canada's vast and cold environment, where certain CO₂-producing activities are necessary for daily life and economic stability.

Privacy and Data Security

• Privacy and Trust: The program involves extensive data collection on residents' energy use, which raises concerns about privacy and potential misuse of personal information.

• Data Security: The involvement of third-party organizations in data management introduces risks related to data breaches and exploitation.

Financial Concerns

• High Costs and Taxation: The program’s mandates, such as purchasing electric vehicles and conducting energy audits, impose significant financial burdens on municipalities and residents, adding another layer of taxation.

• Profit-Driven Motives: There is concern that the program primarily benefits corporations that profit from green technology rather than genuinely promoting environmental stewardship.

Governance and Autonomy

• Shift in FCM’s Mandate: The program shifts FCM's focus from local to international issues, potentially undermining provincial jurisdiction over municipal governance.

• Influence of ICLEI Funding Sources: The influence of corporate sponsors on ICLEI raises concerns about the direction of policies that may prioritize corporate interests over local needs.

• External Guidelines: Reliance on ICLEI’s external guidelines can undermine democratic governance by encouraging staff-driven decisions over those made by elected officials.

• Binding Targets: The program’s emission reduction targets are often aligned with global agreements, creating commitments that future municipal councils may find difficult to reverse.

Housing and Real Estate Impact

• Impact on Housing Market: High-cost mandates increase construction costs, exacerbate the housing crisis, and limit affordable housing availability.

• Impact on Construction Industry: The program's green building standards complicate and delay development approvals, harming the construction industry and economic development.

• Real Estate Acquisitions: Sustainable development policies have led to large-scale property acquisitions by corporate entities, driving up housing prices and reducing affordable housing options.

Urban and Rural Dynamics

• Urban Bias: The program’s urban-centric solutions may not address the unique challenges faced by rural municipalities, such as maintaining a stable tax base and preserving agricultural land.

• Holistic Rural Development: Policies should prioritize local control over land use and property rights to support long-term rural resilience and economic vitality.

• Impact on Agriculture: Provincial mapping that designates land as ecologically protected can restrict agricultural activities, forcing land sales and disrupting local economies.

Practicality and Feasibility

• Active Transportation: Emphasis on active transportation is impractical in Canada’s harsh climate and rural areas, where long distances and weather conditions make such initiatives unsuitable.

• Energy Security: The program’s focus on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 may compromise energy security. A diversified energy approach is necessary to ensure stable and affordable energy supplies.

Transparency and Trust

• Transparency Issues: The lack of full disclosure regarding the program’s liabilities, funding sources, and data collection methods undermines transparency and community trust.

Conclusion

The PCP program introduces significant risks and challenges that outweigh its potential benefits. Canadian municipalities are urged to reconsider their participation in this program and instead focus on developing locally driven environmental strategies. These strategies should prioritize energy security, respect local property rights, and be tailored to the unique needs and values of each community.

Proposed Resolution for Canadian Municipalities to Withdraw from the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program

Date: [Insert Date]
Resolution No.: [Insert Number]
Subject: Withdrawal from the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program
Moved by: [Insert Name]
Seconded by: [Insert Name]

---

WHEREAS Canadian municipalities have identified concerns regarding data privacy, financial burdens, local autonomy, and corporate influence associated with the PCP program;
AND WHEREAS the program imposes high-cost mandates that strain municipal budgets and add a third level of taxation on residents;
AND WHEREAS the program’s urban-centric solutions may not effectively address the needs of rural municipalities;
AND WHEREAS transparency and community trust have been undermined by the lack of full disclosure regarding the program's implementation;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT [Insert Municipality Name] withdraws from the PCP program;
AND THAT [Insert Municipality Name] will develop a locally driven environmental strategy that aligns with the community’s values and priorities;
AND THAT the Municipal Clerk is directed to notify FCM and ICLEI Canada of this decision;
AND THAT [Insert Municipality Name] will engage in comprehensive consultations with residents and stakeholders to tailor environmental initiatives to local needs.

---

Certified a true copy of Resolution No. [Insert Number] passed by the Council of [Insert Municipality Name] at its regular meeting held on [Insert Date].
Municipal Clerk
Mayor/Warden

[Insert Municipality Name] Council Meeting
Date: [Insert Date]
Time: [Insert Time]
Location: [Insert Location]

---

This proposed resolution aims to protect the interests of Canadian municipalities and their residents by advocating for withdrawal from the PCP program and encouraging the development of locally tailored environmental strategies.