The overall impression one gains from this report is that there are a few bright spots but that the city has a long way to go to meet its stated commitments. (We appreciate the scope of an Audit report and therefore do not consider to what extent the stated commitments fall short of a realistic, environmentally sustainable strategy.)
Management’s Response to Recommendation 1 in effect argues that the Audit report starts from the wrong premise because the “Window on Ottawa 20/20″ document is not policy and that instead staff is managing to growth management plans and other supporting plans. This is a disturbing response. The five specific commitments identified in the 20/20 document are repeated in the 2006-2009 Corporate Plan. The Official Plan includes these and many more commitments. A supporting Environmental Strategy was also approved in 2003. What is staff waiting for to manage towards achieving these commitments? We agree with the Auditor that performing an audit of achievements under these five commitments is fair. In fact, we wish that the Report had taken a broader view of what the City is supposed to achieve, such as under the policies of the Official Plan.
It is therefore shocking to see it reported, under Overall Findings (par. 5.1.1., page 6) that these commitments are perceived as having been “compiled for public presentation” and that inconsistency across branches in understanding these commitments prevails. The “public” may be forgiven for in turn perceiving the 20/20 exercise and all that followed as window dressing.
Another line repeatedly expressed in Management’s Response is equally unacceptable. Management agrees with the recommendation that a “logic model” be developed to support achievement of the City’s environmental commitments and promises to do so by Q4 2008. But it will then spend 2008-2009 reviewing the Environmental Strategy, in 2010 complete an “implementation roadmap” and present that to… next Council in 2011! Management should be reminded that the Smart Growth Summit took place in June 2001 and that the Growth Management Strategy, the Environmental Strategy and the Official Plan were adopted in 2003. So eight years later we’re expected to have arrived at an ‘implementation road map”? When might we see actual implementation? At this rate, it wouldn’t be within the term of the 2011-2014 Council.
Another sign of an administration adrift is the Response to Recommendation 3 which promises to use the “annual refresh of the City Strategic Plan” to align commitments to plans, but then in response to Recommendation 4 states that the “timing of the refresh” had not yet been determined. Annual updates usually happen once a year.
The Report notes that there are no indicators for measuring progress on the commitment to “Protect Greenspace” (not in Window on Ottawa 20/20 [page 14], nor in the Corporate Plan [page 18]). This is a glaring omission, but understandable because it is quite clear to close observers such as members of the Alliance that the loss of greenspace in the City continues at an alarming pace. No matter how measured, progress would be negative.
In section 5.1.5 the Report states that the 2007 update of the City’s Environmental Initiatives “will be more substantial than the 2006 update, and will be produced as a formal City publication.” In searching the City’s web site in July 2008, we found no such publication.
In evaluating progress towards each environmental commitment, the Report is often rather generous in putting an X in the “In progress” column. In several instances, the reference is only to the existence of a policy in the Official Plan. Fair enough, except the OP was adopted in May 2003 and few if any of the policies cited were subject to OMB appeals. In our view, something more than having an OP policy in place should be required to qualify as progress by 2007.
In one respect the Report is in error. It cites the commitment to undertake a Greenspace Master Plan as having been completed by the approval of a GMP in 2006. This Plan was for the urban areas only. (One may question – as the Alliance did – whether it even makes sense to have a greenspace plan for the urban areas only, given that ecological integrity does not respect policy boundaries. But, again, this is a question one could argue to be outside the scope of this Audit.) In any case, this commitment should not be assessed as having been completed until there is a plan for the rural areas.
On another matter we found the Report disappointing. In section 5.2.2 it states that “No additional watershed plans are required within the City” (page 20). What is ignored is the Ottawa River. Unfortunately, this blindness to the major watercourse fronting our municipality is shared by the absence of references to it in municipal as well as Ontario policies. The Drinking Water Source Protection Committees, e.g., to our understanding, shy away from the Ottawa, even though it is the major source of Ottawa’s drinking water! We wish the Report had reminded management and Council that the Ottawa River is in urgent need of closer oversight.
Recommendation 14 is based on the observation that there is little sign of “designing with nature” being put into practice. In its Response, management extolls the virtues of a toolkit to be developed to assist in reviewing development applications. We are encouraged by these plans but do wonder: What is so hard about looking for opportunities and leaning on developers to apply “design with nature” principles? The Official Plan policies are clear enough. The Alliance has on more than one occasion identified specific opportunities when development proposals came forward. To our knowledge, they have never been seriously taken up. So the question is: In future, when staff has its toolkit, will it ever say no?
We are puzzled by the statement on page 29 that “By the end of 2004, the City’s corporate greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 24% below 1990 levels” yet learn on page 30 that “there is no corporate-level roll-up to assess overall progress related to [the GHG emissions commitment]. The claim of having exceeded the commitment to a 20% reduction by 2007 (made in 2003) was also found in a White Paper for the Official Plan review where the source given is “SENES, 2007.” We could not find this report on the City’s web site.
The larger point clearly noted in the Report is that the commitment to foster GHG reductions in the wider community is going nowhere. Whether the resources are allocated to move in that direction will be an important test of the will of Council in upcoming Budgets.
Other examples of funds denied are listed on page 12, including rejection of repeated requests to fund compilation of an inventory of material resource use in the community. It would have been the rare activity where the City’s resources would have been devoted to an actual addition to the state of knowledge of our environment. The urban Greenspace Master Plan, for example, whatever its merits, by admission of its chief author did not add a iota to our knowledge of greenspaces. The 1997 Regional “NESS” reports, which are for the most part very superficial and could rarely cite field work, are still the best information we have about ecological features in rural Ottawa. The City has, for many years now, not pulled its weight when it comes to developing a data base of its natural environment.
We will be watching the decisions of Council and the initiatives of staff with a keen eye.