A CALL TO ACTION


RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE
agreement that the costs could be substantial, a昀昀ecting sectors, communities, and reducing our projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
growth. Estimates of the costs and bene昀椀ts of adaptation are also
variable or di昀케cult to measure with con昀椀dence, but there is growing
evidence that proactive or reactive adaptation is more cost-e昀昀ective
than doing nothing. The Canadian Climate Institute, for example, has
estimated that every dollar invested today in proactive adaptation
will return $15 in direct and economy-wide bene昀椀ts, that includes
reductions in the cost of repair or replacement of lost or damaged
infrastructure. The Financial Accountability O昀케ce (FAO) of Ontario
o昀昀ers similar evidence, estimating that in the absence of adaptation,
Ontario’s public infrastructure costs will rise by approximately eight
per cent (or about $2 billion per year) on average over the rest of the
century for each degree Celsius increase in the global mean surface
temperature. In addition, climate-related infrastructure costs for
municipalities in Ontario are projected to be four times larger than
for the province. These costs are very signi昀椀cant when municipalities
show projections of large de昀椀cits in their ability to fund the replacement and renewal costs for infrastructure without accounting for the
impact of climate change.
All levels of government would be advised to consider the 昀椀ndings of the FAO in their management of legacy infrastructure assets.
The FAO considered three di昀昀erent asset management scenarios,
recognizing that climate hazards are accelerating the deterioration
of assets, resulting in higher capital investments for rehabilitation
and renewals, and higher spending for operations and maintenance
(O&M) activities. Compared with doing nothing, where assets management does not consider increasing climate-related costs caused by
accelerated deterioration and more frequent O&M activities, adopting a reactive or proactive approach may initially involve higher
capital costs, but the maintenance costs throughout the asset lifecycle
will be lower.
What’s gone well for climate adaptation?
Proponents involved in planning public and private sector infrastructure projects are increasingly being asked to consider the impacts of
warmer, wetter, and wilder weather, projected with climate change. In
Ontario, for example, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015
included among their infrastructure planning principles, that new
public infrastructure “should be designed to be resilient to the e昀昀ects
of climate change.” Similarly, Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure calls for Municipalities to
consider, as part of its asset management planning “the actions that
may be required to address the vulnerabilities that may be caused by
climate change to the municipality’s infrastructure assets.” In British
Columbia the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has
also been proactive and progressive through their Technical Circulars
for highways and bridges, providing guidance and direction that informs resilient infrastructure engineering design as an adaptation response to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events.
There is also growing expectations for the public and private sector to understand and disclose climate-related risks, both transitional
and physical risks. This expectation emerged from the 2015 Paris
Agreement with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which is evolving into standardized risk reporting
requirements through the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB),
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and others.
The identi昀椀cation of risks through these standards are likely more to
appease 昀椀nancial markets, rather than inform asset or project speci昀椀c
decisions. While Canada supports the adoption of disclosure rules
12
RENEW CANADA – MAY/JUNE2024
based on the ISSB standards, these are voluntary and not mandatory,
and this process is still very much a work in progress.
A big boost to infrastructure adaptation has been through joint
federal and provincial initiatives, such as Infrastructure Canada’s
Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. To be eligible for government funding new infrastructure projects must apply a “Climate Lens” that
considers greenhouse gas emissions and physical climate risks. In the
latter case this must involve the application of a recognized climate
risk assessment framework and provide an explanation on how new
infrastructure through design and/or O&M will reduce vulnerability
and impacts and minimize service disruptions. The costs of assessing
physical climate risks for new infrastructure are covered through the
funding program, while it is implied that the costs of adaptation will
be incorporated into the new design and/or O&M procedures and
captured within the overall project budget.
In support of the Climate Lens requirement the federal government has engaged and collaborated with regional partners to establish climate change data portals that act as a science-based resource
to inform climate change risk assessments. In addition, the federal
government has also funded the development of a broad suite of risk
assessment tools o昀昀ered through the PIEVC program for application to
Climate Lens eligible projects, for portfolios of assets, and for natural
infrastructure. Correspondingly there has also been an advancement
in guidance, tools, and design standards, headed by the National
Research Council, the Canadian Standards Association, and the
Standards Council of Canada, but this is a long and laborious process
where progress takes time, and their coverage is selective and limited.
While we are beginning to recognize the need and urgency for
climate adaptation, there are many barriers to achieving a goal of
climate resiliency in Canada. At its most fundamental level, we are
facing a situation where we cannot fund the replacement and renewal of our aging infrastructure even to a level of performance to meet
our current climate and design standards. Various factors including
uncertainty, organizational capacity, and technical capability result
in a situation where our design standards have not been updated
quickly enough to re昀氀ect a future climate. Finally, our bid and tendering process for public infrastructure is biased towards the use of
outdated design standards and lower-price solutions, and this makes
it di昀케cult to introduce innovative and resilient design and construction methods.
Now is the time for action
A call for action is needed for leaders charged with managing
existing assets and building new infrastructure, that recognizes
adaptation as a necessary response to our changing climate. While
there will be challenges to increasing design standards, proactively
managing legacy assets, and addressing residual risks through modi昀椀ed O&M activities in the most cost-e昀昀ective manner, any additional
costs incurred are likely to be more than o昀昀-set by the rising costs of
increasing climate hazards on asset performance, service delivery,
and safety. Taking actions that reduce emissions and vulnerability together may be a good place to start for some decision makers, while
others may be positioned to adopt nature-based solutions instead of
further hardening or upsizing of infrastructure. Regardless of what
adaptation measures are implemented, their inclusion and selection
should be informed by a climate change risk assessment, recognizing that risk is ultimately shared by planners, designers, engineers,
contractors, asset managers, and O&M personnel. Adaptation is
needed now, and for as long as climate change hazards are expected
to impose risks on our infrastructure.
RENEWCANADA.NET
Paperturn flip book