Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
June 6 - 7, 2007 — Penticton, BC

1. Introductions and Welcome to Territory.

2. Integrated Pest Management.

Opening Comments from MOE:

• Clarification that session is engagement and information exchange, not formal consultation. Session is intended to be a dialogue between government and First Nations to generate discussion and ideas.
• Definition of pests: any plant or animal that takes over an area (could be an introduced species that affects hunting areas, also may be plants that have taken over areas that have traditionally grown berries, etc.). Specific examples of pests include:
  • Insects
  • Mountain pine beetle
  • Mosquitoes
  • Mice
• In Canada, both the federal and provincial governments regulate pest management:
  (i) Health Canada registers use of pesticides to make sure there are no detrimental impacts on people and environment; and
  (ii) Ministry of Environment (MOE) licenses people to sell and use pesticides. MOE manages pesticide use through permits, licenses, and plans.
• The Integrated Pest Management Act (IPMA) moves away from using pesticides solely without looking at other alternatives. Under the IPMA, a proponent has to demonstrate that they have explored all other options before they can use pesticides.
• IPMA covers private and Crown Land, but not private agriculture land (that is covered by Agriculture Canada, Health Canada and Ministry of Agriculture and Lands).
• Standards are all based on scientific knowledge.

Comments from First Nations:

Consultation:

• This workshop is not consultation, and it is imperative that the record show that this meeting does not constitute consultation with First Nations.
• Government needs to be clear about use of word "consultation". Government uses the word more liberally than First Nations.
• First Nations should be dealing with government — not industry — on consultation matters, at least until broader jurisdictional issues are sorted out. Companies do not understand the “big picture” and are only concerned about looking after their own interests.
• Broader “Nation” interests need to be addressed (i.e. Okanagan Nation) through consultation as well as the interests of individual First Nations because there may be some concerns that apply to a whole Nation.

Costs of Consultation and Lack of Capacity:

• Meaningful input from First Nations costs money. It is expensive pay someone to go out into the territory to look at where companies want to spray, and someone — other than First Nations — needs to cover this cost. It is important that companies compensate Bands for any review of plans, etc.
• MOE should consider including a deferral clause in the consultation process so that if a First Nation is unable to review a particular referral at a certain time, that referral could be deferred until the First Nation has more capacity.
• It is good procedure for First Nations to have a policy about fees for referrals so that companies know they will have to compensate First Nations for going out into the territory.
• Capacity costs should be covered up front and be all-inclusive from the beginning of each process. For example, there are several costs that flow out of Forest Stewardship Plans — these costs should be laid out up-front and be all-inclusive so that First Nations do not have to pay.
• First Nations do not have the ability to pay for capacity — companies should pay for capacity and government should be supportive of that principle. The government is obligated to ensure that companies are effectively engaging First Nations by providing financial capacity.
• Currently, First Nations do not even have the capacity to determine which referrals to consider. There needs to be a process developed for the entire Okanagan territory that is inclusive of all issues.

Cultural Values:

• The IPMA should include cultural values as well as scientific knowledge in order to determine whether results are appropriate.

Economic Participation:

• First Nations do not want to only be involved in protecting traditional uses of land, they also want to be active participants in the economy and generate wealth in their own traditional territory. First Nations are not only interested in traditional and cultural aspects, but also want to start participating in "spin-off" effects.

Ecosystem Approach:

• MOE needs to be careful about how it defines an “ecosystem approach” and more attention needs to be given to cumulative effects. For example, in one area there may be multiple pesticide users spraying over areas less than 20 hectares — and therefore each only requiring a permit — but when added together, the spraying over the entire territory totals a lot more than 20 hectares. Because there is no overarching “ecosystem approach” to managing the territory, each area is treated in a piecemeal fashion and the overall impacts are enormous.
• Economic interests of the province and companies always seem to outweigh other interests. Ecosystem values should be given as much weight as commercial values.
• Government Ministries work in isolation of each other and this makes it impossible to develop a comprehensive ecosystem plan. Own divisions within government do not even talk to each other and this is a problem. First Nations have divisions and departments as well (fishers, hunters, berry pickers) — all of these components need to be addressed at the same time.

Jurisdiction:

• Participation in this workshop does not mean that First Nations recognize provincial jurisdiction. Any participation in any government process and these workshops are without prejudice to underlying rights and title.
• The provincial pest management process itself undermines the jurisdiction and authority of First Nations in their own territory.
• Terminology has to change to recognize First Nations legal rights and title to the land. Therefore, legislation and government documents cannot use words such as “allow First Nations…” because this undermines inherent jurisdictional rights.
• The Okanagan Nation cannot agree to accept government processes because it undermines their own jurisdiction. For example, when a forest company is given certain rights to cut trees and then has an obligation to re-plant, they may consult with First Nations on those plans. However, unless First Nations were consulted and approached before any trees were cut, then rights and title are undermined.
• Many First Nations do not approve of pesticides in principle, and government needs to find a way to address this fact. When government does not value First Nation principles, it does not recognize First Nation ownership and rights over territory. If a private landowner tells a company “no, you cannot spray here”, the government does not allow the company to spray, but the same respect is not given to First Nations. This needs to change. First Nations should not have to get into site-specific detail in order to have rights and title recognized.
• The IPMA itself does not provide the ability for MOE to deal with First Nations on a government-to-government basis, and this creates a fundamental conflict of jurisdiction that cannot be resolved by MOE on its own. The conflict in jurisdiction has to be resolved by the Crown through reconciliation.

Monitors and Applicators:

• MOE has not yet defined the term "qualified monitor". First Nations would have a difficult time trying to find someone who is "qualified" with technical and scientific background, so there needs to be some emphasis placed on traditional knowledge.
• It is a good idea to have a program to train First Nations to be monitors if they are interested. The training program wouldn't have to be hugely onerous (for example, training in archaeology monitoring is only a four-day course).
• One issue with training First Nation monitors is that the job would not necessarily provide much work to individuals. In addition to monitors, First Nations should also be able to be applicators. First Nations are not interested in only token jobs that last for a few days. Companies should be able to sit down with First Nations and outline different contracting and job opportunities, and then First Nations could try to work in conjunction with companies to get training dollars. There is a need for a continuation of wealth, not just token participation.
• MOE should consider including in the guidelines some requirements that monitors be First Nations. One way to do this is to stipulate that qualified monitors have to know the territory, culture, and be accepted by the local First Nation. This might give the First Nation in the area the leverage to work with the company to provide their own monitors. These changes could be made to the regulations as well.

Notification:

• First Nations want to be notified annually about plans, and shouldn't have to request this from companies or government. First Nations also want to be notified of any changes to plans.

Permits:

• Eventually an entire territory can be sprayed with pesticides through the issuance of permits for under 20 hectares, and this is a problem.
• It is the responsibility of the province to ensure that the concerns of First Nations are heard in the process.

Process:

• Penticton participants would like to see a copy of the design workshop meeting summary (note: names of design participants will not be provided).

Protection of Culture:

• Protection of culture needs to be added to the IPM presentation. Pest management can impact traditional ways of living.

Site-specific Interests:

• Site-specific terminology is very insulting — just because a First Nation is not using a particular area at a particular time, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are not rights and title in that area.
• First Nations are concerned that when they identify a specific area, that the government will assume the rest of the territory is a "free-for-all" where anything can take place, but this is not the case.
• An over-arching planning process is needed in addition to the site-specific process. There needs to be a government-to-government process that sets the stage for all other activities and relationships.

Timelines:

• A 45-day window is not a reasonable window of time for review of referrals. Chief and Council only meet every few weeks and it takes a while for referrals to even get to their desk. (Note: The IPM guidelines do not specifically mention 45-day timeframe, but government general procedures suggest 45 days and proponents typically fall back on that policy). There is no set timeframe that works for every First Nation — this should be negotiated with individual Nations.

Participant Comments on "Real-life" Scenario

• Companies should work with First Nations at the very beginning of the process before applying to use pesticides.
• The costs for First Nation participation should be identified at the very beginning of the process. When relationships and agreements are developed, then First Nations costs can simply become a "line item" in each company budget.
• First Nations do not always want people to know their inventory of medicinal plants, cultural sites, etc.
• First Nations need a "without prejudice" clause when dealing with companies, especially if they are accepting funds for referrals.
• Government should not share information provided by First Nations unless the First Nations are clear that this is not an issue.
• There needs to be revenue-sharing with First Nations.
• Without adequate data and plans in place, conflicts over possible uses of the land are going to continue to arise.