Environmental Policy & Ontario Greenbelt Lecture

Rational-Comprehensive (Idealized) Model of Policy Making

• Four linear, orderly stages frequently cited as the “official” approach to public policy
  • Define or identify the problem
  • Assess / analyse policy options
  • Implement the selected policy
  • Evaluate the policy’s performance and outcomes
• Assumptions
  • Actors are perfectly rational and pursue the overall public good
  • All relevant information is available, reliable, and understood
  • Implementation proceeds exactly as designed, and feedback loops trigger timely course-corrections
• Myth vs. reality
  • Often referred to as the “rational-comprehensive model” in textbooks, but rarely observed in practice
  • Humorous proverb: “There are two things you never want to see made: sausages & public policy”

Environmental Policy Making in Practice

• Typical sequence actually witnessed
  • Environmental problem recognised—frequently first documented by science
  • Vested interests mobilise and enter public debate
  • Scientific findings are repeatedly challenged, frequently as a deliberate delay tactic
  • Environmental NGOs push for strict regulation and state oversight
  • Industry and incumbent economic actors resist, preferring voluntary or market-based options
  • The public may react superficially or become deeply emotional
  • Politicians weigh electoral calculations, lobbying pressure, and the “NIMTO” factor (Not In My Term of Office)
  • Final compromise reflects relative power, resources, and influence rather than purely technical merit

Chronic Barriers & Challenges

• \textbf{Political\ will\ is\ everything}
  • But political will depends on media salience, public opinion, electoral incentives, and lobbying
• Incumbent industries possess capital, jobs, and well-established lobbying channels → structural power
• Environmental issues are broad and diffuse; they matter to everyone in principle, but often rank low on immediate voting priorities
• Controversy & emotion: environmental decisions intersect with values, identities, and livelihoods
• Scientific and socio-ecological uncertainty clashes with the need for clear yes/no regulatory decisions
• Jurisdictional overlaps (federal–provincial, provincial–municipal) complicate authority and accountability
• Every significant policy creates winners and losers; the losers are strongly motivated to defend the status quo

Analytical Lens: 4 I’s → Ideas • Interests • Institutions • Instruments

• Ideas
  • Public perceptions & normative frames (e.g., “jobs vs. environment”, “housing affordability”, “wetlands are wastelands or vital ecosystems?”)
  • Scientific knowledge about climate, biodiversity, ecosystem services
• Interests
  • Concrete stakeholders and their relative power/influence (industries, NGOs, communities, future generations)
  • Possibility of “regulatory capture” when governments align too closely with industry
• Institutions
  • Formal jurisdictional rules (federal, provincial, municipal authority)
  • Governance architectures, treaties, colonial histories
• Instruments
  • Command-and-control regulations, taxes, fees
  • Subsidies & incentives
  • Decision-support tools: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), modelling, cost–benefit analysis

Case Study — Ontario Greenbelt, Wetlands & Housing

1. Ontario’s Greenbelt & Growth-Plan Context

• The Greenbelt: a provincially designated area protecting farmland, forests, rivers, lakes, and wetlands around the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH)
• Historical evolution can be traced via interactive maps and timelines (Greenbelt Foundation)
• Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006, updated 2017)
  • Performance indicator: “Protect, conserve, enhance and wisely use natural resources”
• The GGH is among the fastest-growing regions in North America
  • 2006 baseline vs. 2031 projection show municipalities with population increases of >22\%, >27.5\%, >38.5\%, and >44\%

2. Status & Trends in Wetlands

• Cumulative wetland loss in Southern Ontario (1800-2002): 1.4\,\text{million ha} removed
  • Township-level percentages: 0!–!25\%, 25.1!–!45\%, 45.1!–!65\%, 65.1!–!85\%, 85.1!–!100\%
• Additional loss 2000-2011 by ecodistrict: 6{,}152\,\text{ha} (percentage classes 0.01!–!0.40\% up to 1.41!–!1.80\%)
• Multiple, interacting stressors
  • Invasive species (e.g., \textit{Phragmites})
  • Climate change effects on bogs and fens
  • Habitat loss via dredging, shoreline alteration, water-level manipulation, urban development

3. Existing Policy Instruments for Wetland Protection

• Ramsar Convention (International, 1971)
• Ontario statutes & programmes
  • Planning Act
  • Conservation Authorities Act
  • Wetland Conservation Strategy 2017!–!2030 (includes mapping and evaluation, “no net loss” goal, restoration targets)
• Additional tools
  • Wetland evaluation system; municipal land-use planning; provincial mapping; decision-screening under Environmental Assessment Act

4. Ideas Shaping Wetland Policy

• Widespread undervaluation: wetlands historically viewed as “swamps” hindering development
• Development narratives (housing, agriculture) are bolstered by organised interests which influence public discourse
• Emerging climate narrative: peatlands and other wetlands as critical natural carbon sinks → strengthens conservation rationale

5. The Housing-Affordability Argument

• Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force (2022) claims province needs 1.5!–!1.8\,\text{million} new homes by 2030 to keep housing affordable
• Idea competes with, and sometimes overrides, conservation goals in political messaging

6. Institutional Landscape of Land-Use Planning in Ontario

• Layered, policy-led system
  • Provincial statutes: Planning Act, Places to Grow Act 2005, Greenbelt Act 2005, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act 2001, Niagara Escarpment Planning & Development Act
  • Provincial policy documents: Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
  • Municipal official plans (single-, upper-, lower-tier)
• Control instruments under the Planning Act
  • Zoning by-laws (§34), subdivision plans (§§50!–!51), site-plan control (§41), minor variances (§45), holding by-laws (§36), interim control (§38), Minister’s Zoning Orders (§47), temporary-use by-laws (§39), increased-height/density bonusing (§37)

7. Instrument Shift — Bill 23 “More Homes Built Faster Act” (2022)

• Reduces Conservation Authorities’ role in reviewing planning decisions; weakens Ontario Wetland Evaluation System
• Curtails public meetings & appeal rights under the Planning Act
• Fast-tracks development in York and Durham Regions; eliminates upper-tier regional planning
• Removes development charges for affordable-housing projects

8. Political Ideas & Controversies Around the Greenbelt

• Premier Doug Ford’s public statements (2018-2022): openness to “opening up” parts of the Greenbelt, promises to replace any developed land, subsequent retractions
  • CBC, GlobalNews, YouTube clips document evolving rhetoric

9. Interests & Lobbying Networks

• Investigations (CBC, The Narwhal, Toronto Star) map land parcels slated for removal from the Greenbelt and link them to developers with political connections
  • Notable purchasers post-June 2018: FLATO Developments, TORCA II Inc, Wyview Group-linked companies, New Horizon Development Group, Rice Group, etc.
  • Lobbyists with past ties to Progressive Conservative (PC) Party: Kailey Vokes, Imran Amin, Leith Coghlin, Peter Van Loan, Amir Remtulla, etc.
  • Government actors: Caroline Mulroney (Minister of Transportation), Steve Clark (Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing), Doug Ford (Premier)

10. Civil-Society Mobilisation & Political Reversal

• Intensifying media coverage and public outcry framed Greenbelt changes as potential “corruption” rather than mere land-use planning
• September 22-23, 2023: Premier Doug Ford reverses plan to remove lands from the Greenbelt—illustrates how shifting public ideas can outweigh earlier interests and instruments

11. Integrative Summary (Ideas • Interests • Institutions • Instruments)

• Ideas: affordability vs. conservation; corruption framing shifted public tolerance
• Interests: developers wield capital and political access; environmentalists harness public trust and media
• Institutions: multi-layered statutes & plans, but can be amended by majority-government legislation (e.g., Bill 23)
• Instruments: from strict land-use zoning & Conservation Authority permits to expedited Minister’s Zoning Orders; selection of tools signals policy priorities and alters power balances

Key Takeaways for Study & Exams

• Distinguish the rational-comprehensive model from messy political reality; be ready to cite concrete steps & deviations
• Memorise the 4 I’s framework to dissect any environmental policy dispute
• Recognise political will as contingent and constructed: media narratives, lobby power, election cycles matter
• In Ontario, understand how multiple provincial statutes and municipal plans interlock—and how a single new act (Bill 23) can reconfigure the entire system
• Case studies (Greenbelt & wetlands) show how ecological science, economic growth pressures, and political scandals intertwine to shape final policy outcomes