How Municipal Climate Action Plans in Canada Drive Positive Social Justice Outcomes

This article looks at how Canadian cities are tackling Decolonisation, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (DEDI) in their Climate Action Plans (CAPs). While many cities include DEDI language in their plans, they often fall short in delivering clear actions. This assessment highlights the performance of twenty Canadian cities, showing a mix of successes and areas for improvement.

When evaluating the plans based on four key themes—Process, Collaboration, Ownership, and Evaluation—some cities perform better than others. Vancouver and Calgary lead the pack, with scores of 66.3 and 51.9 respectively, while others, like Toronto and Markham, also show significant commitment. However, many cities still struggle with transparency and actionable strategies.

The ‘Process’ theme, which looks at how equity language is integrated, often scored highest. For instance, Markham excelled by clearly defining social equity and local inequities. This contrasts with cities like Regina, which used general terms but provided little context. According to a recent survey, only 30% of city plans utilize comprehensive equity terminology, suggesting a need for clearer definitions and objectives.

The ‘Evaluation’ theme, which focuses on success metrics, also showed varied results. Calgary included equity-related goals, like reducing energy poverty. However, the descriptions were often vague. Most cities need to develop more concrete metrics and update their plans regularly to show progress. Experts from climate policy argue that accountability is crucial for ensuring that promises lead to real change.

‘Collaboration’ looked at who was involved in crafting these plans. Vancouver stood out by engaging a wide range of voices, including non-White populations and marginalized groups. However, many cities provided vague descriptions of community involvement, lacking clarity on how different groups contributed to the planning process.

Finally, the ‘Ownership’ theme, which assesses accountability, generally scored the lowest. City of Surrey distinguished itself by assigning clear responsibilities, but many other cities showed little evidence of accountability measures. A study conducted last year indicated that only 15% of cities have defined roles for stakeholders in their DEDI efforts.

Throughout the CAPs, a range of DEDI-related terminology was noted. Cities often used broad terms like “underserved communities” and specific identifiers like “low-income” or “seniors.” While many plans recognized Indigenous populations, children, and low-income groups, others overlooked vital identities, including racialized individuals and immigrants. This shows that cities still have work to do in inclusively defining equity-deserving groups.

Key issues such as health outcomes, housing affordability, and energy poverty were highlighted across various plans. For instance, Edmonton focused on affordable housing options alongside energy-efficient initiatives, recognizing the link between climate action and social equity. Still, issues like structural injustice received limited attention, indicating a significant gap in addressing the root causes of inequities.

The findings reflect a broader trend in climate action where discussions around equity often focus on poverty and access, while the principles of decolonization and diversity are less emphasized. Only a handful of plans considered reconciliation and the inclusion of marginalized voices in foundational ways.

The assessment presents a clear takeaway: while progress is being made, Canadian cities must deepen their commitment to DEDI in climate action. By integrating comprehensive DEDI strategies, cities can drive real, equitable change that benefits all community members.

Source link

Climate-change policy,Government,Climate Change,Climate Change Management and Policy,Social Policy,Environmental Economics,Environmental Politics