Monday, May 28, 2007
Page: A10
Section: Comment
Source: Times Colonist
The great Saanich gypsy moth battle goes beyond a simple dispute over pesticide spraying and raises important issues of property rights and the challenge of balancing individual interests and the common good.
Despite a compromise solution this time, the issues deserve attention.
The battleground was the Cedar Hill area, where the provincial government planned a spraying program to slow the spread of the gypsy moth. But the issue has surfaced before in other parts of the capital region and on Saltspring Island.
The conflict takes the same basic form. Provincial officials believe that spraying with a Btk-based pesticide will eradicate gypsy moths, preventing environmental and economic damage.
Inevitably, some residents oppose spraying. They fear health damage or argue that years of effort put into maintaining organic gardens will be undone. They cite their right to enjoy their own property without intrusion.
All are compelling arguments.
But what of the broader public interest? Provincial officials warn that without spraying, the gypsy moth population will increase. Accepting a request not to spray in one area might mean increased destruction for neighbours.
Balancing those interests is difficult enough, but the issue becomes more complex. The Forests Ministry warns that if moths become established agricultural producers would be subject to Canada Food Inspection Agency restrictions on movement of products off the island. This could devastate nursery and logging operations. In 1999, the U.S. threatened to close its border to B.C. timber after a gypsy-moth outbreak.
A compromise was reached in this round of the battle. About 150 properties in the Cedar Hill area will be sprayed with one kind of pesticide, 12 others will be sprayed with a different version deemed to be organically friendly and two won't be sprayed at all.
The pesticides at issue are both versions of Btk. Foray48B, the newer one, has some landowners worried about its impact on their gardens and health, even though it has been endorsed by the ministry. DiPel, thought to be better for organic gardens, is an older version.
The 14 residents opposed to Foray48B have organic gardens. Some of them confronted government-contracted spraying crews earlier this month to halt spraying. Twelve were eventually willing to accept the use of DiPel, which advocates claim is not harmful to wildlife or to beneficial insects.
Compromises usually have a catch. In this case, the refusal to allow application of Foray48B might force the need for more aggressive applications in future. And what of the property rights of the adjacent landowners, the ones who support the use of the newer pesticide? If the older pesticide is not as effective, gypsy moths are more likely to spread to their gardens and trees.
DiPel -- the older pesticide -- was used last summer on Saltspring Island. Traps placed on the island in 2005 captured 40 gypsy moths and in 2006, captured 32 moths. The modern version of Btk usually results in almost complete local gypsy moth eradication. The government says the ability to eliminate the gypsy moth from Vancouver Island is compromised by the holdouts.
Ultimately, competing rights must be balanced, with science playing an important role. Both sprays have been judged safe
A compromise often means that nobody wins. In the Cedar Hill case, if DiPel turns out to be as unsuccessful as it was on Saltspring last year, everyone loses.
No comments:
Post a Comment