Recognizing the Need for Green Infrastructure
headaches: their stormwater systems are polluting waterways and prone to flooding; their residents often breathe smoggy air; and heat waves can make summer days miserable. Increasingly, cities like Philadelphia and Portland are responding by taking a leaf out of nature’s book. Instead of spending billions of dollars on traditional big pipes and concrete infrastructure, they are engaging the powerful solutions offered by “green infrastructure.” The ecological services provided by urban forests, wetlands, greenways, soils and green roofs can all be harnessed at varying scales to filter, store and cool water, to support biodiversity, to improve urban air quality, and to moderate temperatures and wind. In effect, green infrastructure allows planners and engineers to work with nature rather than sealing it in concrete.
In 2010, Ecojustice filed an Application for Review under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) on behalf of two members of the recently formed Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition requesting that six Ontario ministries redefine “infrastructure” to encompass “living green infrastructure.” The applicants requested that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI), the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) replace their current definitions of infrastructure with the following:
Living Green Infrastructure – Natural or engineered ecological processes or structures, that process, capture, and direct water, stormwater, and wastewater in a similar manner to grey infrastructure, yet have multiple societal benefits.
The application lists a number of examples of living green infrastructure, including urban forests and other natural areas, greenways, streams and riparian zones, green roofs and green walls, rain gardens, bioswales, and engineered wetlands and stormwater ponds. It also includes technologies like porous paving, rain barrels, cisterns and structural soils.
Background
For the purposes of this discussion, MMAH is responsible for the key definition of “infrastructure” in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS). This definition is carefully constrained to mean built structures, or “grey infrastructure,” and points to examples such as sewage and water systems, waste management systems, electric power generation and transportation corridors. At least six Ontario ministries share decision-making responsibilities related to infrastructure that are linked to this PPS interpretation. Green infrastructure is clearly not yet part of Ontario’s policy lexicon.
MOI has a key role, and in June 2011 released a long-term infrastructure plan for Ontario, called Building Together. In a positive development, this new plan does contain language encouraging the use of green infrastructure by municipalities. Similarly, MTO oversees the maintenance of 16,500 kilometres of existing roads and right-ofways, as well as major highway expansion projects worth billions of dollars, with great potential to shift towards greener stormwater management approaches. Both MNR and MOE have existing regulatory and advisory roles in infrastructure approvals, and would need seats at the table in the development of green infrastructure approaches.
OMAFRA oversees the province’s roughly 57,000 farm operations, where green infrastructure solutions, such as vegetated buffers and shelter belts, also have high promise. Farm run-off remains a major water quality concern in the Great Lakes basin, especially for areas with high concentrations of livestock and historically high incidences of reported manure spills, such as Ontario’s Huron County shoreline. Similarly, in Lake Simcoe’s watershed, farm activities are responsible for about 25 per cent of total phosphorus loadings. OMAFRA also regulates agricultural drains through the Drainage Act, with problematic implications for rural wetlands, as the ECO noted in our 2009/2010 Annual Report.
In 2011 all six ministries denied the applicants’ request for a greener definition of infrastructure. Although each ministry provided its own rationale, the common underlying message was that green infrastructure may be a good idea, but Ontario’s current framework of laws and policies is already adequate.
ECO Comment
The ECO is convinced that Ontario needs to introduce “green infrastructure” into its policy lexicon. The existing suite of policies does not effectively recognize or harness the vital services provided by urban forests, wetlands, woodlands and other forms of green infrastructure.
Ontario needs to prepare for the twin challenges of a rapidly growing population and a less predictable future climate, marked by more extreme weather events and higher flooding risks. Facing the same challenges, other jurisdictions have recognized that green infrastructure tools are critical. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recognized that the loss of coastal wetlands around New Orleans significantly worsened the impacts of Hurricane Katrina. The measurable contributions that urban trees make on air quality, local climate moderation and water management are also widely recognized. For example, energy savings attributed to shading by mature trees around U.S. residences are estimated at about $2 billion annually, while the direct carbon storage of urban trees in the U.S. is valued at $14.3 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Ontario has its very own cautionary tale of how unwise land use practices can devastate whole landscapes – and how restoring such lands means working with nature. The Ganaraska region near Port Hope was reduced from dense forest to a barren waste and areas of blowing sand by the 1940s after generations of unsustainable farming and forestry practices. The area’s restoration through the planting of millions of trees has been a testament to good stewardship and a reminder that Ontario depends on its existing green infrastructure, just as surely as New Orleans needed its coastal mangrove wetlands.
Despite turning down this application request, MMAH promised to consider the issue within the ongoing fiveyear review of the PPS. The ECO encourages MMAH to make green infrastructure a major focus of PPS reform and to work closely with MOE. Over the longer term, bringing green infrastructure into the mainstream of Ontario’s planning and design approaches will also likely require reforms to the Planning Act and the Building Code Act, 1992.
The ECO also sees compelling stewardship arguments for MOI to seize the huge potential embodied in green infrastructure, and to translate the encouraging green language of Building Together into pilot projects, measurable targets and goals. This ministry was charged with oversight of close to $16 billion worth of infrastructure projects in 2010/2011 alone. Green infrastructure can provide cost-effective approaches in many settings and at many scales, and deserves serious examination by MOI.
Collaborative teamwork involving OMAFRA, MTO, MNR and, above all, MOE will be needed to move Ontario’s thinking outside the “grey infrastructure” box. For OMAFRA, tackling agricultural run-off remains a big challenge and, so far, the ministry has not been able to quantify or estimate the cumulative environmental effectiveness of its existing approaches under the voluntary Environmental Farm Plans. Drainage Act reforms should also be part of the dialogue, as well as practices to better harness the water filtration and storage services of rural wetlands. For MTO, a priority should be to incorporate and emphasize green infrastructure approaches in its key guidance documents, such as the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities (Highway Projects).
More than any other ministry, MNR is seen as the steward of Ontario’s wetlands and woodlands, which provide the under-appreciated services of storing and purifying water, moderating temperatures and sequestering carbon. A more enlightened vision would legitimize MNR’s efforts to protect wetlands, woodlands and other natural heritage features, especially in urbanizing areas, on account of their enormous practical value as green infrastructure.
MOE denied this application, but the ministry’s response also showed keen awareness that change is needed. MOE should request the go-ahead from Cabinet to engage the solutions represented by green infrastructure. This cannot be a one-ministry job; the new approaches will need to be integrated into the stewardship philosophies, engineering toolkits, guidance on environmental assessments and daily decision making of numerous ministries. MOE should be given a senior role in these reforms, along with MMAH, and should be assured the full engagement and support of sister ministries.
For a more detailed review please refer to Section 5.5.3 of the Supplement to this Annual Report. For ministry comments, please see Appendix C.
| Previous section: Woodland Caribou Conservation: Going Nowhere Fast |
| Next section: Part 4 – Planning Solutions |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Recognizing the Need for Green Infrastructure." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 46-48.
