Funding for preventing bird collisions with buildings: current and future prospects

In recent years, many people, businesses and governments have become aware of bird collisions occurring at existing buildings. There are hundreds of millions of buildings worldwide constructed with glass that is endangering birds, and their risk of causing more bird deaths will continue until some form of mitigation is applied. This is why FLAP Canada recommends solutions for retrofitting glass.

There are many ways that windows can be treated for bird safety, but not all solutions and applications are equal. Undertaking small-scale retrofits can be simple, such as treating residential windows by yourself. However, it can be more challenging to advocate for implementing larger-scale retrofits of commercial, industrial and multi-unit residential buildings for a variety of reasons. There is no standard process, template or model that works in every case. In a previous FLAP blog, I wrote about some of my experiences advocating for retrofits on a post-secondary campus. This kind of advocacy always occurs within a social context that is specific to each situation and the relationship between advocates and decision makers.

This blog discusses another key dimension of bird safe building retrofits: funding. Lack of awareness and of access to funding pose barriers that can be tricky for advocacy efforts to surmount. To help advocates tackle inevitable questions about cost, such as about price tag associated with a given retrofit project or availability of external funding, here I will attempt to demystify how to approach the financial side of preventing bird collisions with existing buildings. Whereas commercial and residential building retrofits are often discussed separately, here I will be discussing both together.

In general, the least expensive way to make a building bird safe is to ensure the initial construction uses bird safe design. The cost in such cases is simply the difference between regular glass and bird safe glass (e.g., with frit or etch patterns) which is relatively easy to justify within the construction budget. For this reason, it is best to share concerns about bird safety early in the building planning process, such as prior to a municipality issuing site plan approval. Contact your local planning department and/or the architect associated with a building project to share information, such as pointing them to the CSA A460:19 Bird Friendly Building Design standard. Municipalities each have a mechanism for the public to share feedback about specific building proposals as part of the planning approval process (I wrote about the process in my community in London, Ontario here).

This blog has 6 sections: working with budgets, aligning retrofits with scheduled maintenance, sourcing labour, government funding sources, private funding sources and future prospects.

1. Requests for internal funding need to work with, not against budgets

If you are approaching a company responsible for a building about treating their glass for bird safety, it is important to consider the context in which your proposal will be received by the building’s management and owner. While there are relatively inexpensive, short-term solutions for stopping collisions at existing buildings like installing Acopian BirdSavers or painting temporary markers on the glass, large-scale projects requiring long-term mitigation measures will likely need a greater financial investment.

Understanding the budgetary process of the organization you are engaging with can help to determine how, as well as when is optimal to approach them. For example, many companies operate according to annual budget cycles which are planned in advance and approved by internal regulatory bodies (e.g., administration, a board) at a predictable interval each year. A budget cycle for a company may or may not align with the calendar year. The same is true for municipalities: governments operate on annual fiscal budgets and some also plan along multi-year budget horizons. Some companies may have multiple layers of budgeting: for example, universities and colleges typically have institution-wide budgets as well as departmental budgets, both of which can be tapped for supporting mitigation of collisions on campuses. Generally speaking, collisions mitigation comes out of capital budgets.

Working within a budget cycle means that unfortunately, retrofits may take awhile to materialise. It is not uncommon for the approval process to unfold over many months or multiple years, during which time bird deaths at the building may continue. While collecting data on these deaths is invaluable, it can be equally important to prioritise the relationship with the decision makers who hold the power to grant permission and allocate funding for mitigation. For this reason, care should be taken to balance advocacy tactics (e.g., shaming) with leaving space for respectful consultation, collaboration and accountability.

Another way to limit upfront cost is to plan installations of a bird safety solution in phases, so that the cost can be spread out over consecutive budget cycles. For instance, if a building has a large amount of glass requiring treatment across multiple areas, identifying the highest-priority façades to be retrofitted first (e.g., where the most birds are found and/or near bird habitat) while leaving the rest for longer-term planning may be less prohibitive for whoever is approving the budget.

2. Cost saving tip: align retrofits with scheduled maintenance

Many factors can affect the cost of a bird safe retrofit. I previously contributed information to a section of FLAP’s website that discusses some of these factors in the context of commercial solutions. There are ways to reduce the overall cost of implementing solutions by planning ahead.

Timing is key! One way to limit cost is to align the timing of installation with when maintenance is scheduled to occur at the building anyway. There may be opportunities to reduce costs associated with additional labour or equipment rentals (e.g., a lift machine) if those components are already accounted for by the budget for maintaining the building. For example, buildings may need regular maintenance to clean the outside of their windows or to reapply wildlife exclusion devices such as spikes or netting.

When planning to retrofit windows with exterior application film, it is important to consider whether those materials need to be installed above a certain temperature threshold (e.g., Feather Friendly film cannot be installed while outdoor temperatures are below 10˚ celsius). Exterior application film may also be installed on new construction or during window replacements instead of using glass with markers built in. In some cases, it may be more economical to apply film on new window units before they are installed on the building.

All windows need to be replaced at some point. Window replacements provide an opportunity to swap out the previous glass with alternatives that provide benefits such as improved energy efficiency as well as bird safety. The typical serviceable lifespan for windows on buildings is around 20-25 years. Many existing buildings on the landscape that were constructed before the year 2000 are now coming due.

It may be possible to estimate when window replacements need to occur by finding out the age of the existing windows (when was the building constructed?) and by looking for signs of those windows beginning to fail (e.g., signs of warping and discolouration inside the window). When components of windows fail, they will no longer function to prevent heat transfer, which can drive up the energy costs for the building and make the interior more vulnerable to drafts and overheating.

Photo of a building with glazing units starting to fail and in need of replacement. The seal around the insulated glass unit is broken, which is leading to corrosion of the coating that helps to limit heat transfer. This building could swap out replacement components for bird safe glass for minimal added cost.

3. Cost-saving tip: source in-house or in-kind labour

Depending on the ownership and management of the building, it may be possible to reduce costs associated with labour by eliminating the need to bring in an external contractor. Some companies have undertaken retrofits of multiple buildings in succession using similar film solutions. Instead of hiring contractors for each building, companies can acquire materials from the manufacturer directly and train their own staff to perform installations.

Some further cost savings can be found by aligning the timing of retrofits of multiple buildings. For example, my university recently undertook retrofits of three different buildings within the span of one month to maximise efficient use of rental equipment.

To support smaller-scale retrofits, it may be possible to crowd-source volunteer (“in-kind”) labour to assist with installations. For example, I have led several window retrofitting workshops at elementary school classrooms, a museum and food bank by inviting participants from the community to assist with the installation. This reduced the cost of retrofits down to just the material components. Participatory retrofits can provide many additional benefits: they promote the reputation of the company supporting the retrofit, rally community members in a social setting around bird conservation and teach them how to apply solutions to other windows, like on their homes. Workshops may be most effective for smaller, ground-floor windows where volunteers are not expected to work at heights. There may be other considerations like liability to account for when planning participatory workshops.

Photo of students applying retrofitting film on their classroom windows as part of an educational workshop. Their in-kind contribution of labour made this project feasible on a limited budget by reducing the costs to just the material components.

4. Government funding sources

Most retrofits are supported by internal funding provided by the owner of the building, especially for privately-owned buildings. However, in some cases, available internal funding may not be adequate. This is where knowledge of external funding tools can come in handy.

Some retrofit solutions that can make windows bird safe are also capable of reducing energy expenditure of the building. Choosing a solution for bird collisions that improves energy efficiency can theoretically provide access to funding streams geared towards climate change resilience and decarbonization of buildings. For example, CollidEscape is a full-coverage film that reduces thermal transfer while also reducing reflectivity and the risk of bird collisions. In the United States, a federal tax credit (Form 5695) can be used towards residential window film products that qualify as an insulation material or system that is specifically and primarily designed to reduce heat loss or gain.

Part of my research with FLAP Canada over the past few years has involved looking at existing incentives for bird safety buildings in Canada, and exploring how new incentives could be developed. As part of a report for Environment and Climate Change Canada, I prepared a review of existing federal programs related to infrastructure renewal that could be modified to include eligibility for bird safety solutions. Although there are currently no incentives specifically geared for this purpose, I expect that will change in the near future considering the Canadian government’s draft Nature Strategy for 2030 includes emphasis on funding for biodiversity conservation, and the government’s response to a petition I wrote inquiring about the subject mentioned “further incentives to adopt mitigation strategies to avoid bird-building collisions.” Stay tuned…

The story is similar at the provincial level of government: I am not aware of any provinces with incentive programs that explicitly include bird safety as an eligible expense category. However, bird safety is being accounted for in some of the province of Ontario’s public infrastructure, such as through retrofits of windows in provincial parks (as recently summarised in a letter sent to various provincial ministries).

At the municipal level of government, funding to support mitigation of bird collisions can be found from diverse sources. These include funding for public infrastructure as well as for privately-owned buildings. All municipalities need to budget capital funding for lifecycle renewal of their buildings, and may leverage funding from higher levels of government to do so. When a municipality adopts a bird safe design standard such as CSA A460:19, it should be made to apply to new construction as well as to renovations of existing public buildings to ensure window replacements use bird safe components.

In the City of Toronto, several buildings such as City Hall and Metro Hall and various facilities in parks have undergone retrofits ahead of scheduled window replacements using departmental funding. The City of Markham is leading the way by prioritising retrofits of its flagship buildings – such as the Civic Centre Building, Fred Varley Art Gallery, Markham Museum and Thornhill Community Centre – using funding from their capital budget. The City of Richmond Hill recently undertook a similar initiative at one of its libraries by embedding bird safety retrofits into its capital budget prioritisation process. In 2024 the City of London awarded funding for retrofitting of glass on the East Lions Community Centre through its participatory Neighbourhood Decision Making program, in which residents submitted and voted on ideas eligible to receive financial support from the city.

In general, the best way to request support for retrofitting of a public facility is to reach out to an applicable municipal representative (e.g., a councillor for your ward, or the ward containing the building) and ask them to connect you with the appropriate staff. Researching which division of the municipal government is responsible for maintaining public buildings and/or planning renovations may also help to find the right connection.

Beyond retrofitting public facilities, municipalities can provide funding to support voluntary retrofits of privately-owned buildings such as homes. For instance, the City of London allocated funding through budgets associated with community advisory committees for Environmental Stewardship and Action as well as Animal Welfare in response to a proposal I submitted to purchase 210 Feather Friendly DIY tape kits. The kits were distributed to low-income households through the local food bank and wildlife rehabilitation centre. Municipalities may have other grant streams for biodiversity and community programs that may be accessed to support similar initiatives, as well as departmental budgets that may not be publicly accessible. Again, it is important to consider the timing of when requests are submitted. In my experience, it can be beneficial to seek funding towards the end of the current budget cycle (at which point any remaining money in accounts managed by parts of the city needs to be used up).

Municipalities also have various programs that are meant to support revitalization of privately-owned commercial and industrial buildings. These programs are often referred to as Community Improvement Plans but they also go by other names. They can include grants, investment-matching as well as low or zero-interest loans available to property owners. Some programs have a limited geographic scope and may apply only to specific neighbourhoods or types of buildings. It is important to review the specific eligibility criteria, as some programs may cover items like window replacements, but exclude items like treatments of existing windows.

For example, municipalities offer variations of commercial façade improvement programs that include window replacements as an eligible expense, such as:

Can these municipal programs be improved and diversified? Absolutely. I would love to see programs like the examples listed above incorporate explicit references to bird safety components for window retrofits and replacement as eligible expenses. Compliance with a bird safe design standard could be added as a mandatory condition for all eligible window replacements. As many municipalities are developing new grants and incentives specifically to support climate resilience in buildings, they may expand criteria to include biodiversity considerations (e.g., nature-based solutions).

5. Private and alternative funding models

Looking at private funding sources, there are many creative ways to finance projects with outcomes related to conservation and sustainability. Various retrofitting projects have taken advantage of crowdsourcing models for seeking donations using platforms such as GoFundMe and Canada Helps (example: Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre). Hosting fundraisers like bake sales or birdwatching outings that invite participants to make donations can also help. For example, in London our local Wild Birds Unlimited store raised funds from the community who participated in a birdwatching outing, and donated proceeds to Bird Friendly London who used them to support a retrofit project. Bird Friendly London has also raised funds through collaborations such as bird-themed beer offered by a local brewery. It may be beneficial to align the timing of fundraising efforts around the holidays, and to align with a non-profit organisation or charity who can collect donations on your behalf and issue receipts.

Funding may be available through direct industry sponsorship. Consider reaching out to businesses in your community, such as utility companies, who have supported other conservation-oriented projects in the past, such as tree planting initiatives. Review a list of tenants associated with the building to undergo treatment, or research affiliations of members of the boards and administration of those companies. It may be important to align with an organisation who is accountable to receive and administer funding support from industry partners, such as a local environmental charity or conservation authority.

Many communities are served by local or regional foundations that provide philanthropic funding support to various causes, including environmental initiatives. Consult with a neighbourhood association or local environmental non-profit organisation to identify foundations whose mandates align with the goals of your project and offer upcoming funding opportunities. Funding applications usually have rigid timing windows and may require substantial investments of volunteer effort to prepare an application.

Some large foundations have historically supported projects involving retrofitting buildings to mitigate bird collisions, such as TD Friends of the Environment (e.g., initiative by Bird Friendly Peterborough) and the Disney Conservation Fund (e.g., initiative by Atlanta Audubon). Other foundations in Canada could theoretically be tapped for supporting bird-friendly projects through existing grant streams, such as the World Wildlife Fund, Birds Canada and Nature Canada’s Bird Friendly City program. Information about foundations that support climate resilience and environmental causes is compiled on various websites. For example, ReTooling for Climate Change offers a list of funding opportunities in British Columbia; the Society for Ecological Restoration similarly maintains a list of funding opportunities. Some colleges and universities have their own internal grant programs for supporting sustainability projects on campus.

When applying for funding from private sources, it may be especially important to link the outcomes of your project to benefits beyond saving birds’ lives. For example, a narrative to support your application may iterate the implications for the mental health of building occupants who will otherwise experience the negative effects of collisions. You may want to emphasize the services that birds you save will provide over their uninterrupted lifespans, like seed dispersal and pollination. Treating glass on buildings in publicly-visible settings can provide cultural benefits such as education and artistic displays.

6. Closing thoughts: a bright future for funding bird safe buildings

This blog has mostly focussed on funding for specific building projects. However, we should also consider how funding can be leveraged at a community-level to treat many buildings on the landscape at reduced cost. Because residences are the most common type of building, they cumulatively kill the most birds. Treating residential windows can be inexpensive, but for many homeowners the labour involved can pose a barrier. Applying markers on glass may require fine motor skills and getting up on a ladder to reach higher windows – aspects that may deter people who are otherwise willing to have their glass treated.

In 2021 I experimented by creating a small business in London, Ontario to fill a critical gap in the local market for bird safety solutions: residential installations. Bird Friendly Windows London was a pilot that aimed to develop a new business model. My partner and I managed to treat a few residential windows, but we quickly realised that the economics of our business needed adjustment. To keep prices low enough for our services to remain accessible and attractive to homeowners, we needed to come up with another source of funding to sustain the business.

Established environmental non-profits could be in a good position to replicate this model. For example, every year the Government of Canada provides subsidised wages for young people to take up jobs within the non-profit sector as part of the Canada Summer Jobs Program. National priorities of the program include “opportunities related to sustainable jobs that support the protection of the environment or delivering positive environmental outcomes.” Could one of those jobs involve applying treatments for bird safety on residential windows? By our calculations, it should be possible for 2-4 homes to be treated in a single workday by a team of one or two people; imagine what could be covered over an entire summer!

Finally, although funding for bird safe retrofits that is available today pales in comparison to the number of buildings requiring treatment, there is reason for hope. The federal government and municipalities are increasingly looking at creating new incentives for biodiversity, and many buildings that are coming due for window replacements provide opportunities for low-cost interventions to be adopted.

What can you do to improve the availability of funding? Speak up for birds by reaching out to your elected representatives at all three levels of government to let them know about the importance of financial incentives to address bird-building collisions as a leading threat.