Report: Recommendation to Withdraw for the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program
Report: Recommendation to Withdraw for the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program
Report: Recommendation to Withdraw for the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program (Version 1)
Prepared for: Canadian Municipal Council Review
Date: October 24, 2024
By: Margaret Hope Braun, KICLEI Canada
Introduction
The motion for Canadian municipalities to register as members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program necessitates a thorough re-examination. While environmental protection is crucial, this program introduces several challenges and considerations that require scrutiny to ensure it aligns with the best interests of all Canadian municipalities and their residents.
Purpose
This report recommends that Canadian municipalities reconsider their participation in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program due to significant concerns regarding data collection and privacy, financial burden, local autonomy, ethical concerns, and impacts on the housing market, agriculture, and construction industry. The recommendation emphasizes prioritizing energy security and creating locally driven environmental stewardship strategies that align with each community's values, priorities, and financial capabilities.
Historical and Ideological Roots of the PCP Program
The background on the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program effectively ties together the historical and ideological roots of the program, its connection to global sustainability initiatives, and the foundational concepts that drive its implementation. This context helps to frame the concerns surrounding the PCP program, particularly regarding issues of local autonomy, land use, and the influence of broader global frameworks on municipal governance in Canada.
Overview and Adoption of the PCP Program
The Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program is a significant initiative within the United Nations framework, aimed at addressing climate change at the municipal level in Canada. Administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and funded by ICLEI Canada and the Government of Canada, the program has been adopted by over 520 municipalities, impacting 70% of Canadians. Despite its voluntary nature and the option for municipalities to withdraw, concerns persist as both the FCM and the Government of Canada have waived liability for the program's adoption and implementation.
The Evolution of ICLEI and the Launch of the PCP Program
ICLEI, the organization behind the PCP program, was founded at the 1990 World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future. The collaboration between FCM and ICLEI to draft Agenda 21 for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) laid the groundwork for the PCP Program. Following the Earth Summit in 1992, the FCM and ICLEI officially launched the PCP Program and, in 1994, released the FCM's Municipal Primer on UNCED.
The Concept of Sustainable Development and Land Use Control
The term "sustainable development" was introduced during the 1976 Brundtland Commission, where the United Nations articulated its official position on land use, asserting that land should not be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals. The Commission emphasized the necessity of public control over land use to facilitate development schemes. This philosophy forms the foundation of many sustainable development policies, including those promoted by ICLEI and the FCM, often centralizing land use control to achieve broader environmental and economic objectives.
Global and Local Connections to the PCP Program
The timing and connections between these initiatives underscore the deep ties between the PCP program and the larger international environmental agenda. The PCP program, as part of this broader framework, aligns local municipalities with global sustainability goals while raising important questions about autonomy, governance, and the practicalities of implementing international agendas at the local level.
Five Milestones of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program
The PCP program involves five milestones designed to guide municipalities in addressing climate change:
Detailed Analysis of Energy Consumption and Waste: Municipalities collect and analyze energy consumption and waste data from all sectors and sources.
Setting Reduction Targets: Reduction targets are set, often aiming to achieve net zero by 2050.
Developing and Implementing Local Action Plans: These plans typically include purchasing electric vehicles, staff training, exploring renewable energy, conducting energy audits, and adopting green building standards.
Endorsing a Climate Action Plan: Local councils endorse the action plan, which often includes declarations of climate emergencies to galvanize public opinion and justify expenditures and policy changes.
Repeating the Data Collection Process: Continuous data collection and monitoring are conducted to track community progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), creating a cyclical process that can pressure councils to adopt costly green technologies and policies without thorough scrutiny.
Key Concerns
Canada’s Geographic Context: Considering the necessity of CO₂-producing activities in Canada’s vast and cold environment is crucial. Policies must reflect the practical realities of living and working in a country with unique geographic and climatic conditions.
Shift in FCM’s Mandate: This program represents a shift in the FCM’s mandate from local to international representation and introduces federal and international influences that may undermine provincial jurisdiction over municipal governance, as outlined in Section 92 of the Canadian Constitution.
Privacy and Trust: Extensive data collection infringes on the privacy of residents and staff, who may be unaware that their daily energy and waste habits are being meticulously recorded, leading to distrust in local governance.
Data Security: Data managed by third-party companies like ICLEI raises concerns about data security and potential misuse, including risks of data breaches or exploitation for commercial purposes.
High Costs and Taxation: Residents already contribute to provincial and federal climate initiatives. The program’s milestones require costly measures like purchasing electric vehicles, conducting energy audits, and adopting green building standards. This adds a third level of taxation on residents and can strain municipal budgets.
Case Study: Edmonton, Alberta
The City of Edmonton invested approximately $60 million in its electric bus program between 2019 and 2022. This initiative was part of the PCPs broader effort to transition to more sustainable transportation. The city added 60 electric buses to its fleet, with some of this funding also going towards infrastructure, such as the Kathleen Andrews Transit Garage, which features innovative overhead charging technology.
However, the project has faced significant challenges, including the recent bankruptcy of Proterra, the U.S. manufacturer of the buses. This has left Edmonton with difficulties in maintaining the fleet and an outstanding claim of $1.3 million for service and warranties (The Deep Dive, 2023) (City of Edmonton, n.d.).
While these initiatives were aligned with the PCP’s global goals, they placed a heavy financial burden on local taxpayers, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. This demonstrates the need for policies that are economically viable and better suited to local needs.
Key Concerns Continued
Profit-Driven Motives: The primary purpose of this data collection appears to be for the marketing of green energy products, suggesting a profit-driven motive that may prioritize corporate gain over genuine environmental stewardship.
Influence of ICLEI Funding Sources: ICLEI's funding from corporations like Google, BlackRock, and Vanguard raises concerns about policy direction and market influence. These corporations have vested interests in data, technology, and sustainability sectors, which may not always align with the best interests of local communities. Such funding can shift the focus towards the interests of these corporations, potentially at the expense of local priorities and needs.
External Guidelines, Staff Influence, and Democracy: Reliance on external guidelines from ICLEI, which recommend staff-driven policy decisions over elected officials, can undermine representative governance and erode democratic principles.
Binding Targets: Setting reduction targets through the PCP program entails a significant commitment that may shape all future municipal plans and decisions. Targets often align with global agreements and are difficult to reverse, binding future councils to established commitments.
Voluntary Participation and Liability: The PCP program's voluntary nature, coupled with waived liability from the Government of Canada and FCM, transfers significant risk to local governments. Municipalities may face financial and legal challenges if program outcomes do not align with community expectations or resources.
Transparency and Trust: Adopting the PCP program without full disclosure of liability, funding sources, data collection methods, potential long-term consequences, and cost of implementation to councils and the public undermines transparency and community trust.
Impact on Housing Market and Housing Crisis: High-cost mandates and green building standards can increase construction costs and delay development approval processes, exacerbating the housing crisis by making housing less affordable and accessible.
Impact on Construction Industry: High-cost mandates and green building standards lack practicality, complicate and delay development approval, increase construction costs, and negatively impact the construction industry and economic development.
Impact of Urban Bias in Sustainable Development Programs: Sustainable development programs often favor urban growth and development which naturally leads to the decline of populations in smaller municipalities. This urban bias results in a lower tax base and availability of services in smaller municipalities while driving up the demand for housing in urban centers.
Holistic Rural Development: Canada is primarily composed of rural municipalities. Tailored approaches to rural development should focus on robust agriculture, resource management, and community empowerment. Prioritizing local control over land use and property ownership is crucial for community stability and preventing displacement. These strategies would promote long-term rural resilience and economic vitality unlike those of the PCP program.
Impact on Agriculture: Provincial mapping that designates most of the land as ecologically protected or prime agricultural restricts landowners from the enjoyment and use of their land and limits their ability to sever. This often forces land sales or forfeitures, displacing farmers and disrupting the local agricultural economy.
Urban Crisis: The urban crisis involves overcrowding, inequality, environmental strain, and social fragmentation due to high-density development. The urban bias of the PCP program drives demand in cities, exacerbating these issues. Policies must balance development with the preservation of community well-being and equitable access to resources.
Active Transportation: The PCP program's emphasis on active transportation is impractical in the Canadian climate and mainly rural settings, where harsh weather conditions and long distances make such measures unsuitable for daily commuting.
Energy Security: Net Zero by 2050 targets requires a transition to renewable energy away from traditional and affordable hydrocarbon sources. Prioritizing energy security and diverse fuel options ensures stable and affordable energy supplies for residents and businesses, which is crucial for economic stability and community well-being.
Impact on Local Environmental Stewardship: Local environmental stewardship initiatives provide municipalities with the opportunity to foster sustainability while empowering residents to take active roles in protecting their environment. These programs should take priority over the PCP and other global climate initiatives.
Conclusion
After a thorough examination of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, it is evident that the challenges and concerns associated with its implementation outweigh the potential benefits for Canadian municipalities. The program introduces significant risks related to data privacy, financial burdens, governance, and local autonomy, all of which could negatively impact residents and the overall well-being of communities across Canada.
The reliance on external guidelines, coupled with the shift in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) mandate, raises serious questions about the erosion of local control and the influence of international agendas on municipal governance. Additionally, the financial strain from high-cost mandates, along with the impact on the housing market, agriculture, and construction industry, further exacerbates the issues facing Canadian municipalities.
Given Canada’s unique geographic and climatic context, the impracticality of some PCP initiatives, such as active transportation and 100% renewable energy reliance, underscores the need for a more tailored approach to environmental stewardship. Municipalities’ priorities should focus on energy security, holistic development that respects local property rights, and strategies that address both urban and rural challenges without compromising community stability or economic vitality.
To protect the interests of Canadian municipalities and their residents, it is recommended that municipalities withdraw from the PCP program and instead develop locally driven environmental strategies. These strategies should be grounded in transparency, community trust, and practical solutions that align with each municipality's values, priorities, and financial capabilities. By doing so, municipalities across Canada can ensure a more resilient and sustainable future that genuinely reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities.
Recommendations
Based on a detailed assessment of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, it is advised that Canadian municipalities take the following actions to safeguard local autonomy, financial stability, and community-driven development:
1. Withdraw from the PCP Program
Municipalities are encouraged to withdraw from the PCP program to avoid the financial, regulatory, and administrative burdens associated with its mandates. Participation in the PCP program often requires significant resources and can divert attention and funds from pressing local priorities. By withdrawing, municipalities can reallocate resources to areas with more immediate community impact, such as infrastructure, public services, and housing.
2. Prioritize Locally Driven Environmental Strategies
Local councils should develop independent environmental stewardship strategies that align with community values, geographic conditions, and economic realities. Rather than adhering to global climate targets, these strategies should focus on practical goals such as pollution prevention, water quality improvement, tree planting, and waste management. These community-specific initiatives will have a more direct and positive impact on local well-being and the environment.
3. Safeguard Privacy and Data Security
Extensive data collection under the PCP program raises concerns about privacy, data security, and potential misuse. Municipalities should protect residents’ privacy by avoiding unnecessary data collection programs and opting for local solutions that respect community trust. Municipal councils can explore less invasive approaches to environmental monitoring and transparency that better align with community standards and priorities.
4. Advocate for Energy Security and Affordability
To ensure stable and affordable energy supplies, municipalities should resist mandates for complete renewable energy reliance by 2050, especially given Canada’s vast, cold climate. A balanced energy approach that includes traditional energy sources alongside renewable options can support economic stability and community well-being. Municipalities should prioritize diverse and reliable energy sources over global carbon reduction targets that may not be feasible or cost-effective locally.
5. Support Housing Affordability and Accessible Development
The PCP program’s high-cost mandates and green building standards increase construction costs, complicate approvals, and exacerbate the housing crisis. Municipalities should prioritize housing affordability by reducing red tape and allowing for a range of housing options that reflect community needs. Policies should facilitate accessible, affordable housing to address local demand, particularly in rural and suburban areas.
6. Respect Local Property Rights and Protect Agricultural Land
Sustainable development policies should not undermine property rights or agricultural sustainability. Municipalities should prioritize protecting land use rights for property owners and agricultural landowners, ensuring that development respects local economic needs. Policies should avoid restrictive land-use zoning that limits landowners’ rights or negatively impacts the agricultural economy.
7. Focus on Economic Development Aligned with Local Priorities
Local economic resilience depends on the success of small businesses, tourism, and agriculture. Instead of relying on global investment strategies, municipalities should support sectors that contribute directly to community prosperity. Tailored economic development plans, especially for rural and suburban municipalities, should encourage small businesses and tourism, which better serve local interests.
8. Address Urban and Rural Development Needs Equitably
The PCP program’s urban focus does not align with the unique needs of rural municipalities, where issues like infrastructure maintenance, economic development, and affordable housing are critical. Municipalities should advocate for development policies that address both urban and rural challenges, focusing on holistic solutions that strengthen community resilience and provide equitable access to resources.
9. Ensure Political Neutrality in Environmental Governance
Municipalities should aim for political neutrality by distancing local governance from international political movements embedded in programs like the PCP. Local planning should remain nonpartisan and focused on practical community needs rather than aligning with global ideologies. Transparent, neutral governance fosters community trust and represents the diverse views of residents.
10. Enhance Transparency and Public Trust
Adoption of climate programs should involve full disclosure of potential costs, data collection processes, and liability risks to councils and the public. Municipalities should prioritize transparency by openly communicating the implications of environmental programs and ensuring residents’ voices are heard in the decision-making process. Engaging communities in developing local environmental plans will increase public trust and foster a more resilient partnership between residents and local government.
Conclusion
To maintain local autonomy, support affordable living, and prioritize the unique needs of Canadian communities, municipalities should withdraw from the PCP program and instead focus on locally tailored environmental strategies. These recommendations provide a framework for developing practical, community-focused policies that address immediate concerns while fostering long-term sustainability.
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 participated in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, which has introduced several significant concerns, including data collection and privacy issues, financial burdens, potential undermining of local autonomy, and ethical concerns regarding corporate influences;
AND WHEREAS the program’s mandates, including high-cost measures such as purchasing electric vehicles, conducting energy audits, and adopting green building standards, add a third level of taxation on residents and strain municipal budgets;
AND WHEREAS the program's emphasis on urban-centric solutions and external guidelines may not adequately address the unique environmental and economic challenges faced by municipalities across Canada;
AND WHEREAS adopting the PCP program without full disclosure of liability, funding sources, data collection methods, and the cost of implementation undermines transparency of the program and community trust;
AND WHEREAS Canadian municipalities value robust local control over land use and property ownership to ensure community stability and prevent displacement, supporting long-term community resilience and economic vitality;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT [Insert Municipality Name] withdraws its membership from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program;
AND THAT [Insert Municipality Name] will develop and implement a locally driven environmental stewardship strategy that aligns with the community's values, priorities, and financial capabilities, focusing on energy security, conventional agriculture, resource management, and community empowerment;
AND THAT the Municipal Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and ICLEI Canada of this decision and take the necessary steps to formalize the municipality's withdrawal from the PCP program;
AND THAT [Insert Municipality Name] will engage in a comprehensive consultation process with residents and stakeholders to ensure transparency, gain community support, and tailor environmental initiatives to the specific needs of the municipality.
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]
References
BlackRock. (2024). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies. BlackRock.
Brundtland Commission. (1976). World Commission on Environment and Development: UN land policy. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/sustainable-development-and-land-tenure
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations.
Canadian Constitution, Section 92. (2024). Powers of provincial legislatures. Government of Canada.
City of Edmonton. (n.d.). Electric buses. City of Edmonton. https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/transit/electric-buses
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). (2024). Partners for climate protection program. FCM.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). (1994). Municipal primer on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. FCM. https://electronstephensmayorkincardine.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/municipal-primer.pdf
Google. (2024). Sustainability policy. Google. https://about.google/intl/en/sustainability/
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), & United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (1996). The local agenda 21 planning guide. ICLEI; IDRC; UNEP.
ICLEI Canada. (2024). Local governments for sustainability. ICLEI Canada.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). (2023). Agricultural land use planning. OMAFRA.
Statistics Canada. (2024). Canadian housing market data. Statistics Canada.
The Deep Dive. (2023, October 2). Edmonton has a big EV bus problem as supplier files for Chapter 11. The Deep Dive. https://thedeepdive.ca/edmonton-has-a-big-ev-bus-problem-as-supplier-files-for-chapter-11/
United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972). (1972). United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference). United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Conference-on-the-Human-Environment
ICLEI (1990). ICLEI founding document. ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. https://iclei.org/en/History.html
Operation Jericho...Oxford County
I would like to present this to the City of Kawartha Lakes Council of the whole in November. I believe it is Tuesday November 26th. This is more involved than a deputation tho. How do I apply to make a presentation? Or - is that only done during committee meetings?
I have completed the initial steps laid out in your Step by Step format. However, I don’t feel our local press will be favourable- although they may - given the inarguable logic of the report- providing they cover it without bias ….