Funding the Future

The report argues that while Canadian federal infrastructure programs generally allow for natural infrastructure, significant design gaps—such as high funding thresholds, lack of capacity-building support, and a focus on new 'tangible capital assets' over existing ecosystem preservation—stymie widespread adoption. It evaluates programs like the ICIP, CCBF, and DMAF against 14 enabling criteria, finding that most fail to prompt or require the consideration of natural solutions. The report recommends a 'natural infrastructure-first' approach, differentiated support for rural and underserved communities, and the integration of natural infrastructure into housing and biodiversity policies to address interconnected crises.

• Natural infrastructure can be significantly more cost-effective than conventional grey infrastructure, with average costs approximately 50% lower.
• Local governments in Canada face a massive 'infrastructure gap' in replacing aging physical assets, estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars, which does not include the costs for new housing infrastructure or First Nations infrastructure needs.
• Despite being eligible for funding in most major federal programs, natural infrastructure receives a very small share of total allocations; less than 1% of funds from the ICIP, DMAF, and CCBF have been directed toward natural infrastructure projects.
• An assessment of six federal programs against 14 enabling criteria shows that most lack essential features to mainstream natural infrastructure, such as prompting applicants to consider natural solutions or providing funding for maintenance and monitoring during the critical 3-5 year establishment period.
• Small, rural, and remote communities face higher barriers to accessing funding due to limited internal capacity and program requirements, such as the DMAF's return-on-investment process, which may favor urban centers with higher property values.
• Federal funding administered through bilateral agreements with provinces can inhibit the uptake of natural infrastructure if provinces do not incorporate all federal program aspects, as seen in Ontario's administration of the ICIP Green Infrastructure stream.
• Natural infrastructure is currently almost entirely absent from federal discussions regarding the housing crisis, despite its potential to provide cost-effective and resilient services for new housing developments.

APA

Mettler, C., Méthot, J., & Roy, D. (2025). Funding the Future. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-02/federal-programs-funding-natural-infrastructure.pdf

Chicago

Mettler, Christine, Josée Méthot, and Dimple Roy. Funding the Future. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2025. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-02/federal-programs-funding-natural-infrastructure.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Mettler |first1=Christine |last2=Méthot |first2=Josée |last3=Roy |first3=Dimple |title=Funding the Future |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=February 2025 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-02/federal-programs-funding-natural-infrastructure.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{mettler2025funding, author = {Mettler, Christine and Méthot, Josée and Roy, Dimple}, title = {{Funding the Future}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2025}, month = feb, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-02/federal-programs-funding-natural-infrastructure.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }