Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
May 23 -25, 2007 — Campbell River, BC

1. Introduction and welcome to territory.

2. Integrated Pest Management:

Opening Comments from MOE:

• "Pest Management" is defined as the tools used to manage pests — i.e. preventing rodents getting into houses, setting traps, using poisons, herbicides and pesticides.
• Pesticides are regulated by Health Canada (federal government) which reviews impacts of pesticides and determines directions for safe use. MOE certifies individuals to sell and / or use pesticides, and sets out rules around the use of pesticides.
• The Integrated Pest Management Act (IPMA) is the legislation under which the regulations fall, and the regulations set out specific standards and rules around pest management.
• The IPMA was drafted in 2004 (passed in December 2004), just before the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Haida-Taku River, and before the New Relationship was signed and implemented. The IPMA refers to consultation in broad terms, not First Nation consultation specifically. MOE recognizes this is a problem, and developed some draft consultation guidelines and talked to the BC Leadership Council about those guidelines (which were completed in May 2006). The draft guidelines were sent to all First Nations in B.C. as a 'stop-gap' measure until more formal guidelines were developed in consultation with First Nations.

Comments from Participants:

Capacity:

• First Nations can create and enforce laws; however, they lack the capacity to do so. There must be a gap analysis and government must determine how they can build capacity within First Nations to engage, train and educate First Nations, governments and people.

Consultation:

• Although industry is required to consult with First Nations, it does not seem to be happening. The Act should specifically say that First Nations must be consulted. There is a gap in the process; government has the responsibility and duty to consult, not industry.
• The consultation process recognizes rights and title but this is not reflected in the relationships or regulations surrounding the IPMA. Industry should be accountable to First Nations whose territory they are working in, and there should be traditional acknowledgements taking place as well.
• The interests of First Nations should be considered early in the process, and should not be second to public opinion.
• Government needs to be clear on who they are consulting with and who information is being sent to. First Nations organizations do not necessarily represent individual First Nations, and this needs to be recognized by government. Risk and liability factors must be considered when addressing accommodation. The key component to a successful government-to-government relationship is respect. First Nations want to be heard and listened to, not heard and ignored.
• It is important that accommodation goes hand in hand with the consultation process.
• Each First Nation has a unique system of government and this needs to be recognized. Industry often moves from one person to the next in order to get the answer that they want, and this is not right.

Cumulative Impacts:

• There is an apparent lack of research and development about the cumulative effects of pest management. The majority of this research seems to come from industry; First Nations would like to see industry fund independent research and development. It should be clearly defined how impacts are determined.

Damage Deposit:

• Government and industry should consider a 'damage deposit'; this amount could be set aside before application took place to cover full rehabilitation costs or clean-up costs in the event that there is a spill or over-application. This would show a commitment to First Nations as well as the public, and show that the proponents and government were being proactive and were committed to the regulations of the IPMA.

Dispute Resolution:

• There should be a specific process for dispute resolution or facilitation / mediation to resolve issues between First Nations, government and industry. There should be a formal process for First Nations to address a dispute aside from legal action.
• Justified infringement and compensation need to be addressed in creating a resolution process. If government can rule justified infringement, it eliminates First Nations role in the decision making process.

Diversity:

• It is difficult to create common processes because all First Nations are different. Uniqueness needs to be recognized and government must realize that First Nations all have different identities and issues.

Education:

• There is a lack of education within government regarding First Nations, and this is needed to create positive relationships. Also, First Nations do not have the advanced education or experience to understand all of the technical levels of pest management plans.

Existing Work:

• There have been studies done and documents put forward which have generated strategic objectives for separate First Nations. Government needs to recognize work which has already been done and should utilize land resource management plans already in place.
• First Nations have provided strategic direction through papers and objectives but this has not been recognized by government on any level. First Nations would like to see integration between government ministries so that this information can be utilized by all government. Many Nations have been successful reaching Land Use Plans and Agreements internally and with the province, and these should be recognized throughout government. Working with people on a one off basis does not work.

Government-to-Government Relationship:

• The province needs to make decisions based on a government-to-government relationship with First Nations.

Infringement:

• Industry should not be able to decide the degree of infringement on rights and title — they should be required to respect Aboriginal rights and title and engage First Nations in the process. First Nations want to be involved in or responsible for determining the degree of infringement.

Integration:

• The IPMA does not reflect any integration. Process is often decided upon based on economics and focuses on spraying rather than alternative methods and integration of the ecosystem. The IPMA needs to reflect integration on a level that respects the balance between human health and environmental health.

Monitoring:

• First Nations are forced to monitor industry in an unofficial way because there is a lack of clear enforcement from the government. There needs to be a formal system of monitoring application which involves First Nations; neglecting this creates a reactive situation instead of a proactive situation. The audit function should not be triggered solely by accidents and reports; government needs to increase accountability and enforce regulations.

New Relationship:

• The components of the New Relationship should not be limited to government, but could also apply to relationships between industry and First Nations. Some companies do not respect Aboriginal rights and title, and this needs to change.

Notification:

• Notification should be standard. First Nations should not have to push for notification of permit applications or licenses and build separate MOUs to obtain this information. Lack of notification creates potential hazards for First Nations who are utilizing resources in their traditional territories.

Practicable:

• The word practicable needs to be defined in order to ensure that proponents are not choosing chemical application solely for its economic benefit; what is practicable to industry may not be practicable to First Nations. This term has been used in the Forest Stewardship Act and an update and definition of the term practicable has been sent out. A similar process should take place for the IPMA and Wildlife Act.

Relationships:

• Positive relationships need to exist between First Nations, government and industry to foster a good working environment, but in some cases industry does not want to engage in this process and frequent staff changes from all sides make relationship building difficult. Processes need to be standard so the stage of relationships between First Nations, government and industry does not affect notification and engagement.

Restoration:

• While industry is required to report spills and is responsible for clean-up and restoration, there is a lack of follow-up to ensure that this process has been carried out correctly. Industry does a quick fix, but First Nations are left to deal with and witness the long-term effects of spills or over-application.

Safety and Environmental Protection:

• There is a lack information regarding where sprays have been done or where they are going to be done. First Nations would like their medicinal plants and traditional territory to be properly mapped and identified so that they could be matched against maps of application areas; lack of accessible information is a potential hazard.

Shared Decision Making:

• In order to reflect a true government-to-government relationship, First Nations must be involved in decision making. This process and communication should be built into the Act or regulations so that First Nations are always included in decision making. Shared decision making is necessary to achieve shared stewardship.
• Industry should submit initial PM plans to First Nations as well as to government to move towards shared decision making. First Nations and government should set steps and mutually accepted standards and other directives together that industry proponents work under. Most importantly, specific territory directives need to be formed.

Silva-culture:

• Intense silva-culture is not being done due to a lack of funding. MOE needs to consider how this can fit in with pest management.

Review of Technical Working Committee on the IPMA:

• Technical Committee conducted a legal and legislative review of the IPMA and regulations.
• Technical Committee did not represent any First Nations in B.C., simply provided a technical review of the legislation and regulations as well as draft guidelines.
• Technical Committee felt it was important that the group be allowed to meet on their own without any government oversight or review. MOE agreed to this approach and the Committee developed the report independently. The work of the committee was conducted in a very short time-frame, mostly through email but also through one or two in-person meetings.
• The paper was produced as a discussion paper, and was not intended to preclude further discussion / engagement from First Nations. The paper was intended to stimulate more discussion.
• The Technical Committee recommended that the IMPA and Wildlife Act discussions occur separately because the issues were so distinct. However, because of “consultation fatigue” and the number of meetings that First Nations are asked to participate in, MOE decided to combine the two processes. The First Nations Leadership Council agreed to the approach of combining the two processes.

Comments from First Nation Participants Regarding Role of Proponent in Consultation (re: Case Study):

• Before proponents start their plan they should be coming to First Nations to tell them that they are building a plan and that they want to build it without infringing on First Nations. First Nations should receive monetary compensation to help with this and industry should be committed to getting their information directly from First Nations.
• Before anything is put on paper, industry should contact the First Nations and communicate that there is an interest in their specific territory.
• Many First Nations have trained forestry people that are out of work. First Nations people should be engaged in going out and doing the work, as well as becoming trained and certified, so industry and government can hire First Nations people to do the work without having to bring in another monitor.
• First Nations often have longer term, broad plans. Having access to the same broad plans of proponents and industry may be of benefit to First Nations by allowing them to understand the full picture of their actions.
• First Nations want all of their concerns to be heard, not just regarding pesticides. There needs to be a connectivity of all environmental issues or concerns, they can’t be dealt with separately. If logging practices or permits are first brought to First Nations, planning may ensure that pesticides do not need to be used on logged areas.
• There needs to be acknowledgement of traditional territory. Industry must recognize this as well and seek permission from the Chief or Nation to come into the area and do work. The New Relationship needs to be supported and demonstrated.
• Government needs to provide a formal apology and acknowledge their mistakes. There is a lot of frustration from First Nations that need to be resolved.
• First Nation protocols with one ministry should be acknowledged by other ministries as well. Lack of communication within government is causing frustration within First Nations. Personnel changes within the Government also cause frustration as new employees are not up to date with First Nation issues, pushing progress back and forcing First Nations to start from square one.
• Government should consider joint permitting with First Nations.
• There is no recognition of Chiefs or hereditary government systems within First Nation communities. This needs to change.
• First Nations need more resources to do studies such as CMT catalogues so they are prepared to deal with industry and government on permitting applications and other issues. One possible solution is to have industry provide resources to First Nations in order for First Nations to review permits and plans etc.
• Timelines and review periods should be extended — lack of resources to address referrals and plans make it almost impossible for First Nations to reply within these small time windows.
• Industry needs to recognize First Nations as governments and not a stakeholder.
• Communication needs to be more open. Safety notices need to be visual as well as written as literacy levels may not be high enough to read all notices that are posted. Newspaper notices often have no reference points on maps and are not useful for people in the communities.
• Government should communicate with the Chief and Council, the Band Manager, and the staff level. Communication sent to these people should be consistent and government should ask for confirmation that this information has been received.