Integrated Pest Management

Ministry of Environment Workshop
Summary of Meeting — Integrated Pest Management and Wildlife Act
May 29 - 30, 2007 — Williams Lake, BC

1. Integrated Pest Management Act and Regulations

Comments from Participants:

General:

• Meeting notice for the workshop was too short, and protocols for invitation weren't followed. Meeting dates conflicted with oil and gas conference, and First Nations should not have to fit in with MOE's schedule.

Alien Species:

• Industry often introduces species such as knap weed in a certain area, and then this expands to federal lands (Reserves) where they are no longer of concern to the province or the company, and First Nations are left with the responsibility of trying to get rid of them.
• First Nations have no resources or capacity to deal with invasive plants on reserve lands, because they fall "between the cracks" of federal, provincial, and municipal jurisdictions and funding.

Alternate Methods:

• There are other ways to control pests than using pesticides. Preventative methods should be considered by government and industry, and there needs to be more education about different methods.
• The problem is that applications always seems to be dependent on the “bottom line”, and even when First Nations have worked out alternate approaches with industry, this is often on a “one-off” basis and when company staff changes the bottom line becomes the priority again and the process has to start all over.

Capacity:

• The referral process is over-whelming First Nations and there is not enough capacity to process all requests.
• Some First Nations are beginning to develop a database of information that industry will have to pay in order to access. Some First Nations send bills to companies to pay for the referrals, but industry doesn’t always pay nor does government. This needs to change.
• First Nations get so many referrals that it can be difficult to keep track of where companies are using pesticides and these may not be the priority referrals to deal with because no one is paying to process them. This does not mean that First Nations do not care about the pesticide use — they strongly care and are opposed to pesticide use. There needs to be a base level of funding provided by government to First Nations for consultation and referral activities.

Consultation:

• First Nations are not stakeholders and should not be treated the same as other stakeholders. There is some mistrust towards government because of previous actions in engagement processes.

Definition of the Term "Pest":

• The term pest denotes something negative, when in fact all animals, insects and plants are part of the ecosystem. First Nations have a different focus on how to define pests.

Dispute Resolution:

• There is a need for a multi-party tribunal with a mediator with binding or non binding decisions making. There needs to be a broad level of expertise on the panel so that alternative methods could be considered (industry should not be the only party represented on the panel). One model to consider is the Nisga’a dispute resolution model.

Economic Opportunities:

• First Nations want to benefit from economic opportunities in the territory.

Education:

• Education of companies is sometimes required, because industry doesn't always understand why it needs to consult with First Nations. First Nations should not have to constantly justify their position and continually have to educate companies about their rights.

First Nation Involvement in Planning:

• First Nations want to be involved in the permitting and licensing process in general, not just as part of the consultation guidelines. For example, First Nations could engage in discussions about the costs of doing different types of applications (i.e. cut and squirt might be a better process in some instances). There are extra values in potentially a less cost effective method but one that would put First Nations people to work.
• Plans need to be built collaboratively with First Nations and industry.

Health Impacts:

• Many First Nation youth have problems with asthma and companies are not always aware of the effects of chemicals on asthmatics.
• Another potential health issue is the experimental use of sewage for fertilizer in reclamation sites. The concern is that the fertilizer makes the trees grow fast but the rings are deformed and this could be having a detrimental impact on other plants.

Information:

• The perception from First Nations is that information provided is one-sided. Industry does not readily provide any information about negative side-effects that may be associated with pesticide use. One of the problems is that plans are too generic and do not describe the times or exact places that pesticides will be applied.
• The system is set up to cause friction — First Nations agree to some chemical use with the assumption that jobs will be provided, and then after one or two years the company goes back to aerial spraying and doesn’t continue to use the other methods.
• Companies need to operate with respect and courtesy towards First Nations and provide information in a timely way.
• A database should be established so that First Nations can what areas are being sprayed within their territories and be able to track cumulative applications over years.

Management of Lands:

• The environment should not be managed based solely on economic considerations.
• If First Nations are involved in the management of lands, then elders will feel more comfortable sharing sensitive information (i.e. what specific areas to avoid because of traditional use).

Monitors:

• First Nations should be given the opportunity to be monitors — this would provide some economic benefit to communities. This would be beneficial to industry as well because First Nation monitors would have information on what traditional areas to avoid.
• One problem that could arise with First Nation monitors is when a First Nations person is hired to work in another Nation's territory — this could be an issue because proprietary knowledge is often specific to one Nation.

Notification:

• First Nations should not have to request notification about pesticide applications — this should be provided automatically.
• Notification needs to be provided to the whole community, not just the band office. Notifications should also be sent to First Nation national governments and tribal councils (as well as individual Bands). Notice also needs to be provided to neighbouring Bands (some individuals have been berry-picking in neighbouring territories and been subjected to spraying because they did not know it was going to take place).
• Some of the berries have very small windows for harvest and there needs to be a coordinated approach to the notices when there are harvests. There should be people out on the ground notifying berry-pickers and others about any spraying.
• Resources need to be provided to allow people to go door-to-door on reserve to advise people of spraying — this will reach people living in more remote areas who may not read the posted signs. Notice might be better received from community members than non-community members. If community members are hired, then this also helps with relationship-building between First Nations and industry.
• Signs need to be more effective, particularly those in high-use areas.
• Signs are not always effective because of literacy issues.
• Some First Nations have seen aerial spraying without having received any notice.

Privacy of Information:

• Government and industry should not assume that they are entitled to use information that First Nations have provided through other forums. Information is the property of the First Nation unless explicitly agreed otherwise. This is particularly true for sacred and archaeological sites.
• Many First Nations are not willing to give site-specific information because of concerns that information will become public or used for commercial purposes (i.e. traditional plant uses). Information on sacred sites should be treated confidentially and not released without the consent of First Nations. Non-disclosure and/or protocol agreements may be necessary in some instances.

Protocol:

• First Nations need to be informed of all activity in their territory. There have been cases where MOE biologists have been doing studies in the territory and not contacted the community — this should not happen. First Nations are interested in receiving results of studies and may also have information to add.

Relationships:

• Relationship-building is an important part of engagement. There needs to be ongoing communication between government / industry and First Nations that allow First Nations to provide information throughout the process.

Traditional Knowledge:

• There needs to be a balance between traditional knowledge and science. First Nations need to be given the opportunity to provide information on impacts even after pesticide plans have been approved. Companies are required to notify First Nations every year about their plans to use pesticides, but First Nations also need to be given the opportunity to provide more information about impacts.

Water:

• Pest management activities affect waterways. Chemicals can sink into ground water.

Notes on IPMA Technical Committee:

• Technical Committee conducted a legal and legislative review of the IPMA and regulations.
• Technical Committee did not represent any First Nations in B.C., simply provided a technical review of the legislation and regulations as well as draft guidelines.
• Technical Committee felt it was important that the group be allowed to meet on their own without any government oversight or review. MOE agreed to this approach and the Committee developed the report independently. The work of the committee was conducted in a very short time-frame, mostly through email but also through one or two in-person meetings.
• The paper was produced as a discussion paper, and was not intended to preclude further discussion / engagement from First Nations. The paper was intended to stimulate more discussion.
• The Technical Committee recommended that the IPMA and Wildlife Act discussions occur separately because the issues were so distinct. However, because of “consultation fatigue” and the number of meetings that First Nations are asked to participate in, MOE decided to combine the two processes. The First Nations Leadership Council agreed to the approach of combining the two processes.
• MOE is meeting with First Nations across the province in the regional workshops to try to determine next steps. Ongoing discussion will take place between government and the First Nations Leadership Council.