Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
July 11- 12, 2007 — Kamloops, BC

1. Introductions

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 public consultation in broad terms, not First Nation consultation specifically. MOE recognizes this is a problem, and developed some draft First Nation 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:

Note: The Shuswap Nation Chiefs would like to meet with the Minister of Environment to discuss consultation and accommodation. The Shuswap Nation Chiefs have already issued an invitation to the Minister in October 2006 to meet in Shuswap territory — there has been no response to the letter, and the Chiefs are providing MOE with an updated letter and requesting that the letter be delivered to the Minister.

Capacity:

First Nations do not have the resources to send staff to meetings to review plans. First Nations have to deal with so many legal issues and there is not enough money to address every issue. Pest management is not usually one of the highest priorities, so it sometimes falls off the table.
The Crown "dumps" capacity issues on the industry, and then industry turns around and dumps it on communities, and this is not right.
The Province does not always have the capacity to ensure that Aboriginal rights are protected, so it sometimes “risk-manages” rights instead and decides which projects / issues to provide resources to and which ones to ignore based on the risk factor.
First Nations should develop fee schedules for industry to follow. A schedule of fees is reasonable — before getting to the point of saying yes or no, First Nations should be paid to consider whether the activity should proceed. This would ensure a meaningful process and a legitimate, informed review of interests.
First Nations have to deal with every provincial ministry, every federal department, municipalities, regional districts, and industry. Bands file an average of 160 reports, just to INAC alone, every year. Many First Nations are simply too busy to look at referrals because they are too busy just dealing with basic business. First Nations have to deal with multiple agencies and multiple processes (strategic and operational), and there is not enough capacity to deal with everything. The onus has to be put back on government to take ensure that First Nations can participate adequately in processes.
There is a huge inequality between industry / government and First Nations. First Nations don't want more than what other Canadians have, they just want parity.

Collaborative Decision-making:

First Nations should have an input into overall decision-making because it is their communities who will be impacted the most by any activity.

Communication:

There needs to be an inter-agency communication strategy or database established to keep track of referrals. First Nations sometimes respond to the same referral every two years because a new company will come along and decide to harvest a cut-block that the community has already provided input into. This is a waste of time and money, and First Nations should not have to continually provide input about the same piece of land. There should be a communication strategy that stops this from happening. If a First Nation says “no” to an activity, they should not be asked the same question two years later over and over again.
There needs to be more interagency communication because there are too many gaps within line agencies and ministries that deal with First Nation interests.
Government agencies often have outdated information (i.e. outdated Traditional Use Studies, archaeological information) and companies rely on that information. It is important that licensees speak directly with First Nations so that they get up-to-date information. Moreover, First Nations have a great level of distrust towards government, and are not comfortable with government providing industry information on their behalf.
The tenuring process within government is inherently flawed because there is no coordination when tenures are transferred and different activities take place in the territory. First Nation interests get eroded over time and there is no accountability within government to address this fact and not enough controls to prevent it from happening.

Consultation:

This meeting is not consultation — it is an information-sharing session only. In the past, the Province has taken "everything First Nations have said" with prejudice, so it is important to clearly articulate that the meeting is not formal consultation.
Industry and government typically approach First Nations with plans that have already been developed. First Nations want to be consulted at the beginning of the process and do not just want to be brought into the room after plans have already been put in place. No one else can tell First Nations how to protect their own land, water, and community. First Nations need to give information about what plants and animals they utilize etc.
It is the the government’s duty to consult with First Nations and to ensure that industry does what it is supposed to do. First Nations want to know beforehand what is required of industry and then want to be consulted at that level, not just asked how many quarts of pesticide should be used. As it stands now, First Nations aren’t being properly consulted at the strategic or operational level.
Industry consultation is often inadequate — industry sometimes just continually phones the Band office until they get someone to say "go ahead" with the activity.
MOE should just accept each First Nation's own consultation guidelines, rather than instituting their own guidelines.
One of the biggest problems is that the Crown very rarely says no to a proposed development, regardless of issues a First Nation may have raised.
You have to clearly have Chief and Council approval of a referral — they are the ones that make the official decisions, it cannot be just any Band member. Company should be told who they should deal with at the Band. Very rarely require Band Council Resolution for responding to referrals.
"Front-Counter BC" says that if First Nations cannot respond to a referral within the allotted time, then the government will act on behalf of First Nations to protect interests. (Note: IPM referrals do not go through Front-Counter BC). It is not possible for government to act in the best interests of First Nations if they do not know what those interests are.
Any framework that is developed must address consultation as well as accommodation and must respect the diversity of different First Nations.
The consultation process starts the minute industry submits a plan to MOE to apply for licenses and permits. It is at that point in the process that there should be some consideration for measures such as direct awards, collaborative management, etc.

Dispute Resolution:

Government should not mediate disputes between industry and First Nations — this would create an inherent conflict of interest because government licenses and permits industry, so they should not also be in charge of mediating disputes.

Economic Benefits:

First Nations should obtain some economic benefit from activity taking place in their territory. Specifically, industry should work with First Nations to identify potential work crews to assist with spraying or monitoring that is done in the territory. Industry and government often overlook this potential.

Ecosystem Approach and Biodiversity:

Government and industry need to look at whether pesticides will impact the environment on an ecosystem basis, not site-specific basis. In order to do this, a baseline needs to be established to determine impacts. The impact of pesticides should be considered for the entire territory.
First Nations are interested in exercising governance and jurisdiction over their entire territory, not just sites here or there. Government needs to start acknowledging title and reflecting court decisions that have clearly recognized that First Nations have title.
Part of pest management plans outline preventative measures, and some of these measures are as bad as the use of pesticides. When you start spraying to kill invasive species you also kill indigenous plants until eventually you have just one species or one monoculture and any biodiversity disappears. Industry doesn’t always want to spend the time it takes to re-grow the entire ecosystem because it is not economical. This is particularly true with forestry because the Ministry of Forests basically encourages the use of pesticides through promoting the “free to grow” state (ensuring that trees that have been cut down are “free to grow” and not hindered by other species). This is often in conflict with the interests of First Nations, who may want to have a diversity of berries, trees, shrubs etc.
The Province and industry often ask First Nations to identify site-specific interest, and this is basically asking First Nations to consider parcels of land like little fenced areas. In reality, First Nations consider everything to be inter-related and it is not possible to separate out site-specific interests. Government also makes an assumption that First nations have had an adequately resourced opportunity to determine site-specific interests, and this is very rarely the case.

Federal Government:

Canada is never present at any meetings except treaty decisions. There should be more of a presence from the federal government so that initiatives could be Nation-wide.

Forestry:

First Nations receive a huge volume of referrals regarding forest management plans, and pest management plans come along so much later that it almost seems as though the two processes are completely unrelated. Pest management plans have never been received with a forest stewardship plan — they always come later. This is a serous disconnect because huge blocks are being forested and a lot of land then needs to be managed. Once replanting needs to get done, other species are managed by using pesticides. This will be a growing issue over the next while in the interior because of the huge cut blocks that have been forested.
First Nations have negotiated some agreements with forest companies to re-forest only indigenous plants.
Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP) are a new way of doing business and a lot of First Nations simply do not have the capacity or the time to go through FSPs in sufficient detail. FSPs are very broad and describe what will be done for the next five years, how it will be done, etc. First Nations are not funded to review the plans and this is creates a burden on communities.
Forest range opportunities are not necessarily related to FSPs, but some companies say that First Nations can use the money from those agreements to pay for referrals under FSPs. This doesn't make sense.
Forest range opportunity agreements are essentially a partial acknowledgement of impacts to Aboriginal rights that are consequence to forest activities. It is not a negotiation per se, it is a take it or leave it voluntary process. Forest range agreements are not related to real impacts but are a partial acknowledgement of impacts. Some communities have not signed FRA / FROs and have to manage land base solely through funds provided by INAC (which are very minimal).
First Nation interests are not necessarily addressed before a forest company cuts down trees, so interests have already been "pushed aside" before the IPM process starts.
There needs to be a process established that allows First Nations and industry to exchange information on an on-going basis (aside from the LRMP process, which some First Nations do not participate in).
It makes more sense to do consultation around pesticides at the FSP stage; it doesn’t make sense to duplicate the two processes. First Nations identify their interests at the FSP stage, yet the logging company still goes out and destroys areas, and then First Nations are asked to go out yet again and identify interests that have already been destroyed. This does not work.

Mining:

First Nations have huge concerns about mining activities in the area, particularly about the lack of consultation that has occurred around staking of claims. First Nations are also concerned about machinery and minerals causing erosion and impacting streams. Water quality and land erosion are major issues, and First Nations need to be notified of activities to make sure there are protections in place. Currently, First Nation interests are not considered.
Another concern regarding mining is the fact that mining companies may not always clean up weeds etc. that they leave behind because the industry can be so transient (i.e. a company could leave behind 20 kilometers of knapweed and not clean it up and the next year the company no longer exists). Government needs to enforce performance bonds and work with local First Nations to ensure that areas are cleaned up properly.
Note: MOE will relay First Nation concerns about mining back to the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Monitoring:

Industry should be obliged to provide a deposit before working on the land — this would ensure accountability because industry would be held responsible for any damage they do to the territory. Damage deposits should be tied to the initial permitting process.
Government needs to be more accountable for their decisions. Unlike First Nations, government decision-makers do not have to deal with community members on a day to day basis — they can walk away from decisions once they’ve been made, even if those decisions are not the right ones. Government decision-making should be more locally based so that impacts are more tangible.
Years ago there was more government staff out on the land and who knew what was happening in the territory. This approach was beneficial because there was a more local presence. Government should consider going back to that approach. First Nations should be trained to be qualified monitors because they have a knowledge and connection to the land.

New Relationship:

Some First Nations won’t sign Forest Range Agreements because they will not mention title. First Nations are treated all the same by government and are worth “a truckload of wood and $500” in the eyes of the Premier. First Nations are governments too and B.C. needs to start recognizing and legislating that reality. The New Relationship doesn’t mean anything — right now it is just words and this makes First Nations feel extremely skeptical about any promises that are not reflected in legislation. In much of the province it still feels like the “Old Relationship” — same problems, different day.

Pesticide Use:

Some First Nations are against application of pesticides because it seeps into the ground and impacts the food and water that people eat and drink.
Less than 20 hectares is still a big area for First Nations and need to be protected as well as the larger areas.

Results-based Approach:

The “results-based” approach — which translates into MOE simply monitoring industry and then “slapping hands” when something is done improperly — does not work. Results-based means that you simply have to fix whatever has been done wrong, rather than preventing it from happening in the first place.
It is not clear whether there is any system in place to track pesticides once the vendor has finished with application. Industry essentially handles left-over herbicides in their own way, and there needs to be more regulation.

Traditional Knowledge:

Government does not always accept information from oral traditions, even though these have existed for thousands of years.

Relationship with Crown:

Some First Nations have stopped using the term "honour of the Crown" because there is such little respect for government and such a lack of trust because of past actions.

Timelines:

A 30-day timeline is not an adequate timeline for a response — First Nations do not have the resources to respond to referrals within that timeframe. Even a 45-day window is often not enough time.
Government response time to First Nations is exceedingly slow — First Nations write letters to government and it can take up to a year to get a response, and sometimes they never get a response.
Agreements have to go back to Chief and Council to determine whether interests have been addressed.

Summary: Overall Recommendations for Consultation Framework

A consultation framework must be inclusive, open and transparent.
First Nations capacity must be developed.
Industry users should approach First Nations first before talking to government.
A technical working group should be established to address issues, similar to forestry archaeological committees that have been developed. The technical working group would be comprised of industry and First Nations. The working committee could be a representative body that would ensure all viewpoints are heard (even though everyone may not be able to sit directly at the table). Smaller First Nations often get “pushed aside” in such a process and it is important to ensure that this does not happen.
First Nations should be trained and provided with knowledge about pesticides and their application. Existing First Nation crews should be further trained so that they can fully participate in application and monitoring.
First Nations need to be paid for their participation in the process, and this should include resources for hiring technical consultants. Communities need to see some economic benefit to participating with industry.
Government and industry need to consider alternatives to chemical management of pests. There may be opportunities to hire community members throughout the year to look at alternatives, particularly because so many First Nations people are unemployed in the community.
Relationships between First Nations and industry are important because trust is necessary before First Nations feel comfortable sharing information.
First Nations are interested in negotiating separate agreements with industry around IPM.
MOE should review processes that are already in place to develop an effective consultation framework (i.e. multi-stakeholder approach such as Turning Point).