Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
June 28 - 29, 2007 — Fort St. John, BC

1. Introductions and Welcome to Territory

2. Integrated Pest Management

Opening Comments from MOE:

• Definition of a pest includes:
  • Mosquitoes
  • Broom
  • Weeds
  • Plants
  • Animals
  • Insects
  • Dandelions
• "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 broad law 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.
• 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 B.C. 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.
• The process for the IPM and Wildlife Act discussion is as follows:
  • Province meets with First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) to talk with them about how they should obtain First Nations input on the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management Act and Regulations (IPMA) and the proposed introduction of a new, updated Wildlife Act.
  • FNLC and Ministry of Environment (MOE) agree that the information should be taken out to the First Nations in a series of regional workshops. Every FN in B.C. will be invited to attend.
  • Eleven workshops are scheduled to cover all regions in B.C. and each First Nation in the province is invited to attend these discussion sessions. It is confirmed that the sessions are not consultation and that the information recorded from the discussions will be sent back to the participants from each session to enable them to verify that they area accurate. At the end of the sessions an independent summary report will be prepared by the consultants and provided to the FNLC and to MOE.
  • It is not clear what the next steps related to IPMA are and there is not a specific time frame associated with it. With respect to the Wildlife Act, a First Nations working group drawn from individuals who attended the regional workshops will be established to review the report and identify the issues and potential policy solutions.
  • This information will be provided to the FNLC recognition committee, who will provide input to the province to be forwarded to the legislative drafters. It is anticipated there will be ongoing discussions / exchanges at the FNLC level through the fall and the development of the draft legislation.

Comments from First Nation Participants:

Impacts of Pesticides on the Environment and Human Health:

• Some
• elders have said that they cannot find berries they used to harvest, and they have also observed that traditional medicines and fish have been negatively impacted by pesticides.
• Rabbits are dying from the impacts of pesticides and there are fewer vegetarian animals in the territory (Treaty 8 conducted a survey last year and found no porcupines in the area, and rabbits were noticeably thinner).
• The moose feed off the fresh buds of the willow leaves and there are now unusual spots appearing on the moose's livers. First Nations eat a lot of moose and are concerned that they may be poisoned from the pesticides.
• The first time pesticides were used in the north, 30 cattle died.
• Pesticides can affect other insects (even if not directly sprayed) and can change the genetic makeup of other animals and insects. MOE should also look at the long-term effects on people from pesticides.
• Since the 1950s, bull moose are too thin, and since the early 1060s the number of birds returning to the territory have decreased.
• Pesticides have killed off species that would naturally protect against pests (i.e. frogs, garter snakes, etc.).
• The West Moberly Lake is now so polluted that you can no longer drink the water, and creeks are polluted as well.
• First Nations have been reporting chemical spills and their impacts on the environment for years to government, but nothing ever changes.
• There has been a lot of information recently about the poor health of Aboriginal people, and this indicates that more needs to be done to protect food sources.
• Some areas should be temporarily fenced off when pesticides are being applied in order to prevent animals from being poisoned.

Cumulative Impacts:

• MOE should look at the cumulative impacts of chemicals that are being introduced into First Nation territories — including chemicals from industrial use. There need to be changes to the IPMA that makes large scale industrial pesticide use illegal.
• There have been cumulative impact studies around some of the First Nation communities in the Great Lakes area, but nothing has been done in B.C. around the ecosystem effects of contaminates. Research that has been done doesn’t look at the subtle changes that chemicals have had on the environment.
• No one wants to take responsibility for doing cumulative impact studies — government says that industry is responsible for funding the research, and industry says government is responsible.
• Elders often see the effects of contaminants first because they are out on the land more than most people. There needs to be studies about the first impacts of chemicals as well as the cumulative effects to animals and the next generation of animals.
• First Nations have observed a lot of impacts from pesticides on insects, birds and animals. For example, when different green feeds are affected, the rabbits die off, and then species like martens and other fur bearers start to die off as well.
• In 1995, Treaty 8 First Nations took MOE to court and had permits revoked based on the definite impact of pesticides on First Nation territories.
• Chemicals used for dandelions kill your grass and some of the spills have definitely drained into waterways. Government and industry have been dishonest about the impacts of chemicals.
• First Nations are concerned about the seepage of chemicals into watersheds.

Traditional Knowledge:

• The values that contribute to decisions around the types of chemicals to be used in the territory are often political and not based in science. Traditional knowledge needs to be taken into account when decisions are made, but this is not happening. Western science must start recognizing Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).
• Traditional studies need to be specific to each territory — what applies in the Okanagan does not necessarily apply to the northeast — there are too many ecological and geographical differences.

Alternative Methods:

• Range burning and using water was used to help in the over predation of certain species and therefore we controlled the “pest” but these uses have now been outlawed by Victoria.
• Different Aboriginal communities have different eco systems and know how to protect their areas from pests. For example, on Vancouver Island, First Nations have sued steam as a way to manage pests, and have forced MOE into trying this method.
• The creator made all living beings, so even “pests” are here for a reason For example, mosquitoes are food for other animals, and everything in the forest ecosystem has a place. The wilderness is the “pharmacy and foods store” for First Nations and should only be sprayed as a last resort.
• Sheep grazing could be used as an alternative to pesticides.
• Resources need to be allocated to examine methods that could be used instead of pesticides.
• MOE should work with First Nations to examine best practices around the use of pesticides so that industry can be properly informed.
• People in the northeast do not want to see industrial-scale applications of pesticides in the "back-country" — alternatives need to be examined.

Information about Pesticides:

• Labelling of pesticides must be simplified in some way.

Economic Opportunities:

• First Nations have high unemployment rates and would like opportunities to do more manual brushing. Employment can be created by such things as hand-brushing, using sheep to graze, keeping bird populations up to eat insects, etc.

Health Canada:

• Health Canada should have been present at the regional workshops.
• Health Canada should ensure that community members have easy access to information about chemicals being used in the territory.
• A recent David Suzuki report pointed out that Canada allows the use of some chemicals that are banned in other countries. This calls into question whether Health Canada’s analysis of the impacts of pesticides and herbicides is strict enough.
• Health Canada should study the impacts from run-off salt and other pollutants from the highways into the waterways next to the highways.

Management of Pesticides:

• Co-management is the only way that pests can be managed in the territory.
• The use of pesticides should not be driven by economics — impacts to the environment should also play a role.
• First Nations should be involved in the auditing process and should have some sign-off of plans in their territories.
• There needs to be retroactive consultation on plans that are in place but have not yet had any First Nation consultation.
• There should be resources allocated to allow First Nations to do collaborative studies on pesticides and their impacts on the environment and wildlife.
• Pesticide studies should be conducted in conjunction with biologists working for First Nations. First Nations need to be involved in studies.
• First Nations are uncomfortable with “site specific” discussions because they take a broader “ecosystem” approach and are concerned about the entire territory.

Results-based Decision-making:

• The term "results-based" needs to be defined and clarified.
• "Results-based" management is not effective because the focus is always on impacts and not causes — if there were better planning, there wouldn’t be a need to use so many pesticides. Results-based is also not a good management tool because it leaves industry in charge of itself.
• First Nations are concerned that a result based approach will allow government to “off load” the responsibility of protecting First Nation rights and interests. The auditing and penalties process is not going to be robust enough to protect rights.

Monitoring:

• There needs to be more monitoring of industry. The "audit" process is not being effective in monitoring pesticide use.
• None of the six Treaty 8 First Nations have ever dealt with any of the "full-time compliance and enforcement officers" that work for MOE in the northeast. This indicates that there is no meaningful audit function.
• The sale of chemicals is regulated but people often use pesticides incorrectly. There needs to be more education on pesticide use.

Capacity:

• First Nations need to be compensated for time and effort spent gathering information and knowledge they share with industry during consultation processes.
• First Nations in the northeast are impacted heavily by pesticide use, so they need to be properly consulted about legislative changes. First Nations need to be given enough time to consult internally about any changes, and resources need to be provided to facilitate internal discussions.

Specific Points Related to Treaty 8:

• Treaty 8 has a solemn pact with the Crown which guarantees them that they will be able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to hunt and gather in perpetuity. The Crown is not living up to its obligations to the Treaty when it allows numerous prima facie impacts.
• The Crown is not discharging its lawful obligation to understand the full scope and extent of the impacts of pesticide use on the constitutionally recognized and protected rights of the Treaty 8 people when it allows the current practice of applying massive amounts of chemicals into the back country that Treaty 8 members rely on for sustenance. The Crown is allowing the “contamination of the kitchen and pharmacy”.

Other Comments:

• First Nations want to be involved in drafting IPM guidelines and in any legislative changes. Funding should be provided so that communities can work with government.
• First Nations need to be consulted about any changes to the IPMA, and enough time needs to be provided for internal consultation within communities.
• There is a lack of communication between MOE and Treaty 8 First Nations regarding compliance and enforcement of pesticide use. Treaty 8 First Nations are concerned that this means that there is an inadequate audit function in the Province and that the new “results-based” management regime is ineffective. Note: MOE and Treaty 8 have agreed to discuss this issue in more detail.