Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
June 19 - 20, 2007 — Chilliwack, BC

Note: Meeting is not consultation

1. Integrated Pest Management:

Opening Remarks from MOE:

• Definition of "pest": a pest may be a natural or introduced species, and includes rodents, plants, fish, mosquitoes, weeds, etc. Pests can sometimes pose a health risk (i.e. West Nile).
• "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.
• IPMA and regulations apply to public and private lands but not agricultural lands. Agricultural lands are regulated by Agriculture Canada, Health Canada, and Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
• One of the goals behind the IPMA is to only use pesticides if essential.
• 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 First Nation Participants:

Capacity:

• Referral overload is an issue and pest management referrals often get pushed aside without being given full consideration.
• Economic interest of the province tend to dominate over environment interests, in part because MOE has such a small staff and relatively small budget to put forward interests. First Nations have even less capacity to advocate for their interests, so this creates a systemic imbalance that just continues over time.
• When meeting with communities, proponents should go to Chief and Council first, but it should be noted that most communities do not have enough capacity to deal with all issues.
• A lot of information is not received by referral technicians in First Nation communities because of the lack of capacity — information is not passed on in time for communities to provide meaningful input.
• First Nation communities do not have the capacity to deal with referrals, especially when their comments aren’t “worth the paper they are written on” because projects just proceed regardless of whether First Nations oppose them or not.
• Industry should ask communities what capacity requirements they will need to review referrals.

Consultation:

• The Crown is responsible for consultation and accommodation and should not be allowing proponents to take a lead role in that process.
• First Nations should receive any consultation reports that industry sends to MOE to ensure that issues are being accurately identified. Industry should not be able to “tweak” what First Nations have said or “sugar-coat” the issues that they report back to government. First Nation comments should be copied back to all parties of the process, including First Nations.
• MOE should consider attending meetings between industry and First Nations (similar to how the Ministry of Forests operates) so that they hear concerns first-hand.
• Consultation should be done at the strategic (land-use planning) level in addition to the community-specific level. Government should start “red-flagging” areas that First Nations have noted concerns about, instead of asking First Nations over and over again to comment on a specific area. This information should be passed on to industry so that they are made aware of it in advance of making any plans.
• Proponents need to be able to modify their plans to meet First Nation interests.
• Government needs to come to First Nations at the beginning of the process, not just ask First Nations to review existing plans and policies.
• First Nations would like to see notifications at a higher level and shouldn’t have to ask to be sent pest management plans. It would be helpful if First Nations could receive maps on what activities are being carried out in their territory on an annual basis.

Cumulative Impacts:

• First Nations would like to receive information about the bio-cumulative effects and multiple approaches that can be used, and the effects of a combination of products on people and the environment.
• Multi-year pest control management plans need to start looking at health studies because of the impact pesticides may have on children in First Nations community. There needs to be research into whether some of the pesticides are creating breathing or other health problems.

Decision-making:

• First Nations should be a part of the decision-making process and should have input into whether impacts are "significant" and determining what should be done if they are significant.

Dispute Resolution:

• Dispute resolution processes are never independent, and are always one-sided. From a First Nations perspective, these processes do not resolve any issues but just allow development to go ahead.

Forest Stewardship Plans:

• It is not clear whether information collected under Forest Stewardship Plans are passed on to pesticide users.
• There is a concern that traditional use information from First Nations may be passed on through Forest Stewardship Plans to others without the consent of First Nations. The “de-linking” of the two processes (Forest Stewardship Plans and pesticide use) creates a lot of work for First Nations.

Information:

• Information provided to First Nations needs to be meaningful. It is often difficult to understand all of the technical language, especially about what chemicals are being used. There needs to be more information about what the chemicals are and what impacts they could have on people and the environment — this information needs to be put in layman’s terms, and examples of impacts would be helpful.
• There needs to be signage identifying the name of pesticides being used in an area. First Nations also need to know how long the pesticides are going to have an effect. This is particularly important in areas that have a lot of rain, because this could cause the pesticides to seep into soils, creeks and ditches. As well, children often like to wander and play in ditches where animals might be used, and pets and animals might be consuming pesticides through plants.
• If First Nations could be involved in signage, then it might be more accurate and targeted in a way so that people understand the notices (i.e. diagrams, etc.)
• Band offices need at least two weeks notice to make up signs to notify community members about the use and location of pesticides. Some community workshops to raise awareness might also be helpful.

Jurisdiction:

• The government continually denies First Nation rights and title and their jurisdiction over the land. Sto:lo people have jurisdiction over their own territory, and their interests need to be integrated into decisions.
• Government and First Nations need to "go back to the basics" to talk about who has jurisdiction to make policies and procedures in the first place. Recognition of ownership and jurisdiction needs to be sorted out before any new laws and policies are enacted.
• If First Nations agree to talk to proponents and government about activities in their territory without first resolving the issue of rights and title, then there is a concern that those issues will never be addressed. The fundamental issues of jurisdiction and rights and title cannot be resolved simply by providing First Nations with some training dollars or economic opportunities.

Referrals:

• Sometimes responding to referrals seem fruitless because industry goes ahead whether First Nations agree or not. A lot of times there are concerns from First Nations but the project goes ahead anyway.
• Economic interests should not be more important than First Nation concerns. Protecting First Nation interests should be a priority.

Site-specific Interests:

• Site-specific details really just allow industry to do what they want to do by putting a red-dot around a specific area and ignoring the rest of the territory. First Nations are more about the entire territory and how it is being developed. Moreover, ecosystems are always changing so it can sometimes be difficult for First Nations to pinpoint site-specific interests.
• First Nations often do not want to provide site-specific information — particularly related to sacred, spiritual sites — because they don’t want outsiders to know this information. First Nations often also do not want to provide information about medicinal plants, because then the government might start trying to regulate the use of those plants.
• Access to spiritual and traditional sites is an issue because many of the sites are now under development.

Training:

• Training for First Nation monitors, training and evaluators needs to be provided and can't just be token participation.
• Process is endless chance, don't have opportunity to not participate because then assumed consent, and then when do put in comments they are not looked at in detail.