City’s tree canopy goal falls to Ford’s axe When Rob Ford took office, the nightmare scenario was that he would leave four years later having done so much damage that the city would take years to recover.[briebreak]
Only 10 months into his rule, suddenly our leafy canopy is in the balance. Lost in the budget debates that saved libraries and late-night buses was a significant council decision to stall the urban forest plan so passionately promoted by the former regime. And now the self-?styled “city within a park” may become a bit more city and a lot less park.
On recommendations from KPMG, the ambitious goal to double Toronto’s tree cover by 2050 has been put off. While the Urban Forestry department is expected to present a revised timetable before the end of the year, the inevitable result of council’s decision is not only that fewer trees will be planted in parks and on streets, but the cash for maintenance will also dwindle, meaning fewer trees will survive.
Couple that with the invasion of the emerald ash borer – LEAF estimates that the city will lose nearly all of its 860,000 ash trees, 8.4 per cent of the entire canopy, by 2017 – and we may not see significant growth in the urban forest for at least a decade.
“Toronto was seen as a leader because of that target,” says LEAF’s Janet McKay. “It’s very discouraging for council to be making a decision like this when we are facing the emerald ash borer. Now more than ever, we need to protect what we have.”
Councillor Mary-?Margaret McMahon is equally dismayed. “We have a serious air quality issue, with 1,800 people dying prematurely yearly. We’re going to suffocate ourselves if we don’t stick to our goal.”
Indeed, it was the benefits of carbon and pollution capture that motivated council to set a target increasing tree cover from 17 per cent in 2005 to 30 to 40 per cent by 2050. Expansion of the Urban Forestry Services budget was approved in 2009, ramping up funding from $31 million to $43 million.
The results were immediate. In 2010 the department planted 14,000 large-caliper trees, up significantly from only 6,000 a year earlier. They also planted some 100,000 smaller trees and shrubs, and enhanced proactive maintenance programs.
The manager of forest renewal, Beth McEwen, is currently seeking $80 to $90 million in emergency funding to deal with the ash borer, but whether she’ll get it is unclear. Even if the city coughs up the money, the official plan is to replace only 344,000 of the 860,000 ash trees that will die as the insect works its way across Toronto over the next 10 years. The rest are smaller plants in untended forests that will be left to rot.
“The growth of the canopy is probably going to flatline or even drop” until the ash borer plague plays itself out, predicts McEwen.
For her part, Councillor McMahon is trying to organize community stewardship programs, but ultimately she’s hoping council will reconsider scrapping the timeline before the final budget decision. “In my mind it’s not over,” she says. "It can’t be over."
Only 10 months into his rule, suddenly our leafy canopy is in the balance. Lost in the budget debates that saved libraries and late-night buses was a significant council decision to stall the urban forest plan so passionately promoted by the former regime. And now the self-?styled “city within a park” may become a bit more city and a lot less park.
On recommendations from KPMG, the ambitious goal to double Toronto’s tree cover by 2050 has been put off. While the Urban Forestry department is expected to present a revised timetable before the end of the year, the inevitable result of council’s decision is not only that fewer trees will be planted in parks and on streets, but the cash for maintenance will also dwindle, meaning fewer trees will survive.
Couple that with the invasion of the emerald ash borer – LEAF estimates that the city will lose nearly all of its 860,000 ash trees, 8.4 per cent of the entire canopy, by 2017 – and we may not see significant growth in the urban forest for at least a decade.
“Toronto was seen as a leader because of that target,” says LEAF’s Janet McKay. “It’s very discouraging for council to be making a decision like this when we are facing the emerald ash borer. Now more than ever, we need to protect what we have.”
Councillor Mary-?Margaret McMahon is equally dismayed. “We have a serious air quality issue, with 1,800 people dying prematurely yearly. We’re going to suffocate ourselves if we don’t stick to our goal.”
Indeed, it was the benefits of carbon and pollution capture that motivated council to set a target increasing tree cover from 17 per cent in 2005 to 30 to 40 per cent by 2050. Expansion of the Urban Forestry Services budget was approved in 2009, ramping up funding from $31 million to $43 million.
The results were immediate. In 2010 the department planted 14,000 large-caliper trees, up significantly from only 6,000 a year earlier. They also planted some 100,000 smaller trees and shrubs, and enhanced proactive maintenance programs.
The manager of forest renewal, Beth McEwen, is currently seeking $80 to $90 million in emergency funding to deal with the ash borer, but whether she’ll get it is unclear. Even if the city coughs up the money, the official plan is to replace only 344,000 of the 860,000 ash trees that will die as the insect works its way across Toronto over the next 10 years. The rest are smaller plants in untended forests that will be left to rot.
“The growth of the canopy is probably going to flatline or even drop” until the ash borer plague plays itself out, predicts McEwen.
For her part, Councillor McMahon is trying to organize community stewardship programs, but ultimately she’s hoping council will reconsider scrapping the timeline before the final budget decision. “In my mind it’s not over,” she says. "It can’t be over."
Origin
Source: NOW
No comments:
Post a Comment