Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
June 25 - 26, 2007 — Terrace, BC

1. Introductions and Welcome to Territory.

2. Integrated Pest Management:

Opening Comments from MOE Regarding IPMA:

• Definition of a pest includes:
  • Mosquitoes
  • Broom
  • Weeds
  • Plants
  • Animals
  • Insects
  • Dandelions

Comments from Participants Regarding Consultation Requirements:

• "Pest Management" is defined as the tools used to manage pests — i.e. preventing rodents from 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 idea 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 as a temporary response 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 Participants:

Alternative Methods to Pesticides:

• Proponents need to explore alternatives fully before using pesticides. Some First Nations have experimented with alternate methods — such as applying saltwater — and this works in some situations. It seems as though proponents don’t seriously exploring options often using “cost” as their key decision criteria.

Capacity:

• First Nations require capacity in order to monitor the use of pesticides in their territory. Industry does not always respond to requests for capacity (i.e. so that First Nations can go out into the territory to review the plans and determine impacts).
• First Nations do not have the capacity to do mapping (polygons etc.) for site-specific information.
• Some First Nations have implemented a "fee-for-service" policy regarding review of referrals, but this is not always successful.
• Industry needs to start building First Nation capacity costs into their budgets. This could be done through fee schedules that lay out costs for different types of work. This structure would allow communities to build capacity internally, and would ensure that all costs are not being “foisted” onto one referral.

Consultation Process:

• Information provided to First Nations needs to be clear and meaningful and industry needs to act in a respectful way and follow-through with discussions. If there are issues raised, the province needs to be advised of them. First Nations should be copied in any reporting-back that industry does regarding First Nation concerns as well as anything the province provides back to industry on applications that First Nations have reviewed.
• When a company is planning a pest management plan, the first thing they should do is make direct contact with impacted First Nations and determine who should be sent information about the plan. Once this is established, the community needs time to review information and consult with members.
• Companies need to demonstrate a clear willingness to work with communities.
• Up until very recently, there was limited consultation with First Nations and no compensation for infringements — this has created some grievances with First Nations.
• It is compulsory for Canada and B.C. to consult with Nisgaa on any resource development on the Nass area.

Ecosystem Approach:

• The province needs to consider traditional knowledge based on an ecosystem approach, and not just rely on scientific data when regulating the use of pesticides.

Forest Stewardship Plans:

• There should be more coordination between Forest Stewardship Plans and pesticide plans and permits.

Harmony within Government:

• There needs to be more consistency within government in general, and MOE in particular. The “right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing” half of the time, so government should not expect this of First Nations.

Health Issues:

• There is an interest in finding out information from Health Canada about the impacts of pesticides on a population's health.

Impacts on Reserve Land:

• Reserves could be impacted by the use of pesticides on provincial land, even though reserves are federal land and do not fall under the jurisdiction of IPMA. There need to be some linkages between the federal and provincial processes to ensure that impacts are addressed (i.e. communities that use surface water for water supply could be significantly impacted).
• It is important to ensure that nothing falls "through the cracks" with the delineation between municipal, federal, provincial and private lands.
• Where they are in communities, Environmental Health Officers could be used by First Nation communities to monitor everything happening on the land that could impact the health of people. They could be used to help inform communities about planned use of pesticides and respond to peoples concerns about any possible impacts.

Language:

• Industry and government need to use understandable language when dealing with First Nations — complicated language (i.e. ungulate instead of ‘browsing animals) should only be used when necessary.

Monitoring:

• First Nations require maps of pesticide plans in order to effectively monitor the use of pesticides.

Site-specific Information:

• First Nations should not have the onus of proving site-specific impacts from pesticides.
• There confidentiality concerns that First Nations have with providing site-specific information, particularly around traditional spiritual sites, medicinal plants, etc.

Notification:

• Notification about the use of pesticides is not always adequate. Newspaper notices and signs on posts or trees may never be seen by community members.
• First Nations require time to notify members about the use of pesticides. Many communities issue notification to every household so that all members are made aware of the pesticide use. Industry should consider compensating First Nations for this service, because it is a cost that First Nations are incurring in order to assist industry with notification.

Results-based:

• IPM legislation is “results-based” and looks at the impact on people and the environment. MOE should consider including a consideration of cultural impacts as well. In addition to the protection of people and the environment, an accommodation of First Nation rights could be added to the “results-based” criteria.

Traditional Knowledge:

• MOE needs to consider traditional as well as scientific knowledge, particularly when a community might know how to treat pests without using herbicides.
• Infringement of rights has to be proven, based on western science, and this is not right.

Use of Pesticides:

• Many First Nations oppose the use of pesticides in general. This needs to be addressed in the legislation. Any truly respectful “New Relationship” would be responsive to issues of this much importance to First Nations. Aboriginal people are very connected to the land and rely heavily on traditional foods and medicines that are gathered — thus the potential for impacts from herbicide use is much greater than the general population.