Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
May 15 - 16, 2007 — Prince George, BC

1. Introductions and Welcome to Territory.

2. Integrated Pest Management:

Opening Remarks from MOE:

• Definition of pests: any plant species 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
  • Etc.
• In Canada, there are two governments that regulate pest management: (i) Health Canada registers use of pesticides to make sure they have no detrimental impacts on people, and environment. Health Canada examines the effects of chemicals in pesticides; (ii) MOE licenses people to sell and use pesticides. MOE manages pesticide use through permits, licenses, and plans.

Comments from First Nation Participants:

Access:

• Access is an important issue — if a company uses public, easy access to spray pesticides, then the likelihood of negative impact on people and the environment could occur more readily.

Alternatives:

• Manual clearing is preferred to herbicide applications. Guidelines should encourage alternative methods to pesticide use — more environmentally-friendly methods should be prioritized. MOE should consider providing funding to encourage industry focus on alternative methods.

Appeal Process:

• There should be some kind of appeal process for First Nations when they disagree with a pesticide plan.

Capacity:

• First Nations receive an excessive number of plans and referrals every day and do not have the capacity to process all of the information requests.
• First Nations require multi-year funding so that they have the expertise to review plans and meet with companies. Effective consultation requires numerous meetings and also requires funding for independent First Nation advisors.
• MOE cannot expect one common consultation approach to apply to all First Nations. Depending on the individual capacity and circumstances of each community, the approach to consultation will differ.

Consultation:

• Companies should meet with First Nations in person and explain plans; sending letters is not sufficient consultation, even though companies may try to define it as consultation. Sending faxes or letters is not sufficient. Companies need to know that consultation is an ongoing process — not a one stop event.
• Policy and legislation can infringe Aboriginal rights and therefore consultation should happen before policy or legislation is written.

Cumulative Impacts:

• Each species has its own role in the environment and everything is inter-related. If one species is eliminated by pesticides, there could be a negative impact to other plants, insects, birds or fish. All vegetation contributes to the carbon cycle and climate change, and everything needs to be protected. First Nations believe that all things are connected and killing off one species for another is not a holistic approach. First Nations people would like to be part of or be funded to do studies on the impacts.

Information:

• Information about chemicals in the pesticides should be clearly marked and provided to First Nations. It is also important that plans are written in an understandable way. First Nations should receive all information early in the process.

Legislation:

• MOE should consider changing the Integrated Pest Management Act (IPMA) to address deficiencies in the Forest Range Act related to the management and prevention of noxious weeds.

Monitoring:

• First Nations need to be involved in monitoring of pesticide use in order to ensure that hunting and gathering areas are protected. Site specific information needs to be properly observed and recorded from First Nation perspective. The regulations need to be stronger to encourage First Nation monitors.

Notification:

• More resources are required to allow First Nations to notify people of proposed pesticide applications. More signs are required, and notification of spraying needs to be done automatically, not just if requested. Even on forestry roads, notification of spraying should be required because many berries (raspberries, soap berries, etc) exist on those forest roads, so there should be notification of any spraying that takes place.
• Proponents should provide First Nations with schedules of spraying applications — the regulations should be amended to make this a requirement of companies.
• There should be some way to touch back with First Nation communities even after a plan has already been approved.

No-pesticide Policy:

• First Nations are concerned about the inability of communities to enforce their "no-pesticides" policy.

Testing:

• Companies should be required to test the results of their pesticide applications. First Nations should also receive reports about the status of pesticide applications and any negative impacts (currently, reports are only sent to First Nations upon request).

Water:

• It is important that there are no pesticides or herbicides sprayed on or near water ways.

Workshops:

• Some individual First Nations would like to meet with MOE independently, in addition to the workshops and discussions with the First Nations Leadership Council.

Other:

• Provincial agents should not be allowed to spray pesticides on reserve.