ResponsetotheProposedStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(PrimaryProductionandRural

Development)andrelatedplanningreforms

15January2018

Preparedby

SarahdeWit,KatieJohnston,TammiJonas,PennyKothe

AnthonyWilson&CourtneyYoung

AustralianFoodSovereigntyAlliance

2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ABOUTTHEAUSTRALIANFOODSOVEREIGNTYALLIANCE(AFSA) 3

BACKGROUND 4

EXECUTIVESUMMARY 7

WHATTHEPROPOSEDPLANNINGPROVISIONSMEANFORFARMERS 8WHATTHEPROPOSEDPLANNINGPROVISIONSMEANFOREATERS 9WHATAFSAMEMBERSWANT 9LISTOFRECOMMENDATIONS 9

THECASEFORREFORM 11

ANIMALINDUSTRIESINAUSTRALIA 11THECASEFORAGROECOLOGY 14FOODSECURITY:PRESERVINGVALUABLELANDFORFARMING 15

ISSUESWITHTHEPROPOSEDPLANNINGPROVISIONS 24

INTERPRETINGTHEPROPOSEDDEFINITIONS 24PROPOSEDPIGFARMPROVISIONS 29PROPOSEDPOULTRYFARMPROVISIONS 35REGULATORYPROCESSISSUES 41RESOURCESFORCOUNCILSTOADMINISTERINCREASEDREGULATORYBURDENANDREGULATORYIMPACTSTATEMENT 43

APPENDIXA:IMPACTASSESSMENTFORM–PIGFARMS 45

APPENDIXB:IMPACTASSESSMENTFORM–POULTRYFARMS 47

APPENDIXC:CODEOFPRACTICEFORPASTUREDPIGFARMS 49

APPENDIXD:SURVEYDATA 53

APPENDIXE:DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATIONCOSTSEXAMPLE 57

3

AbouttheAustralianFoodSovereigntyAlliance(AFSA)TheAustralianFoodSovereigntyAlliance(AFSA)isacollaborationoforganisationsand

individuals working together towards a food system in which people can create,

manage,andchoosetheirfoodsupplyanddistributionsystem.AFSAisanindependent

organisation and is not aligned with any political party. We have more than 700

individual,organisational,business,andfarmmembers.

In2014weestablishedaproducers’branchofAFSA,FairFoodFarmersUnited(FFFU)

toprovideabalancedvoicetorepresentfarmersandadvocateforfairpricingforthose

selling to the domestic market, connect Australian farmers for farmer-to-farmer

knowledgesharing,andtobeavoiceforfarmer-friendlyregulationsandstandards.

We are part of a robust global network of farmer-led organisations involved in food

securityandfoodsovereigntypolicydevelopmentandadvocacy.Wearemembersofthe

InternationalPlanningCommitteeforFoodSovereignty(IPC),Urgenci:theInternational

Network for Community-Supported Agriculture, and La Via Campesina – the global

movement of peasant farmers, and we have strong relationships with Slow Food

International and its Australian chapters. We also provide support for the sole

AustralasianrepresentativeontheCivilSocietyMechanism(CSM),whichrelatestothe

CommitteeonWorldFoodSecurity(CFS)

Wework extensivelywith primary food producers and consumers across every state

and territory in Australia. Our committee has consisted of published academics and

lecturers from the University of Melbourne, RMIT, Deakin University, University of

Tasmania, University of Sydney, and QUT. We have also had representation from

farmers fromeverystate, and localadvocatesandcampaignerssuchasFoodConnect,

FriendsoftheEarth,Regrarians,FairFoodBrisbane,andthePermacultureNetwork.

Ourvisionistoenableregenerativefarmingbusinessestothrive.

Australians increasinglycareaboutthewaytheir food isproduced, including itssocial

and environmental impacts. They seek out food that is grown locally and without

damagetotheenvironment.Foodproducedonsmallregenerativefarmsisincreasingly

indemand,andwebelievethatitiscriticalthatgovernmentheedschangingcommunity

expectations and facilitates, supports and encourages the growth and viability of

regenerative agriculture while protecting the environment and human and animal

health.

4

BackgroundRecently the NSW Government released theirproposed reforms to state planning

controls for NSW rural industries. AFSA hasmade a commitment to ourmembers to

engage with the evolving planning reforms in NSW, including the Environmental

PlanningandAssessmentAct1979(tobesupersededbythetheEnvironmentalPlanning

and Assessment Amendment Bill 2017) and the current reforms to the Environment

PlanningandAssessmentRegulation 2000 (theRegulation).AFSAmade a submission1

to its review on 24 November 2017 to express our views on the requirements the

Regulation places on small-scale farmers whose farms are deemed ‘Designated

Developments’inNSW.

KeytotheStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicies(SEPP)reformsforAFSA’smembers

is that five SEPPs relating to agriculture arebeingmerged intoone statepolicy.This

process aims to ‘modernise and simplify the planning system.’2 TheGovernment has

identified that the SEPPs need to reflect modern agricultural practices and support

commitmentsintheNSWRighttoFarmPolicy.

Livestock farms, including pig and poultry farms, are already subject to numerous

levels of intervention and layers of costs.Many are subjected to Local Land Services

inspectionsandtherequirementtoholdNSWFoodAuthoritylicencesforthefarming

and transportofpoultry, alongwith licencing costs for theprocessingandstorageof

meat and the costs and administrative loads involved in theNLIS scheme. This is an

existinglayerofregulatoryandfinancialburdenthatexists.

The proposed package of reforms will add to this further by affecting Local

Environment Plans (LEPs) and will determine when farms require Development

Consent,anotherlayerofadministrativeburdenandcost.

CurrentDefinitionsThecurrentdefinitionfor‘intensivelivestockagriculture’isthekeepingorbreeding,forcommercialpurposes,ofcattle,poultry,pigs,goats,horsesorotherlivestockthatarefedwhollyorsubstantiallyonexternally–sourcedfeed,andincludesanyofthefollowing:

(a) dairies(restricted)(b) feedlots(c) piggeries(d) poultryfarms,butdoesnotincludeextensiveagriculture,aquacultureorthe

operationoffacilitiesfordroughtorsimilaremergencyrelief.

1NotethatthissubmissionisnotavailableonthewebsiteDPEsubmissionpagebecausewesubmittedbyemail.Receiptdated:27November2017.

5

Thecurrentdefinitionfor‘extensiveagriculture’includes:

(a) Theproductionofcropsorfodder(includingirrigatedpastureandfoddercrops)forcommercialpurposes,

(b) Thegrazingoflivestockforcommercialpurposes,(c) Beekeeping,(d) Adairy(pasture-based).

‘Feedlot’currentlymeansaconfinedorrestrictedareathatisoperatedonacommercialbasistorearandfattencattle,sheeporotheranimals,fed(whollyorsubstantially)onpreparedandmanufacturedfeed,forthepurposeofmeatproductionorfibreproducts,butdoesnotincludeapoultryfarm,dairy,orpiggery.ProposedDefinitionsTheproposeddefinitionfor‘intensivelivestockagriculture’referstothekeepingorbreeding,forcommercialpurposes,ofcattle,poultry,pigs,goats,sheep,horsesorotherlivestock,andincludesanyofthefollowing:

(a) dairies(restricted)(b) feedlots(c) pigfarms(d) poultryfarms,butdoesnotincludeextensiveagriculture,aquacultureorthe

operationoffacilitiesfordroughtorsimilaremergencyrelief.‘Intensivelivestockagriculture’willcontinuetobepermittedintheRU1–Primaryproduction,RU2–RuralLandscapeandRU4-PrimaryProductionSmallLotszones,butmaybepermittedwith,orwithout,DevelopmentConsent.Theproposeddefinitionfor‘extensiveagriculture’refersto:

(a) Theproductionofcropsorfodder(includingirrigatedpastureandfoddercrops)forcommercialpurposes,

(b) Thegrazingof livestock for commercialpurposes,where theanimals eatplantsgrowingontheland,

(c) Beekeeping,(d) Adairy(pasture-based),wheretheanimalseatplantsgrowingontheland,(e) Supplementary and emergency feeding, and temporary penning or housing of

animalsforweaning,dippingorrelatedpurposed,thatisincidentaltothegrazingoflivestockoradairy(pasture-based).

Theproposeddefinitionof‘feedlot’willmeanaconfinedorrestrictedareathatisoperatedonacommercialbasistorearandfattencattle,sheeporotheranimals,butdoesnotincludeapoultryfarm,dairy,orpigfarm,orextensiveagriculture.Thedefinitionof‘feedlot’willnolongerincludereferencetohowtheanimalsarefed.IssueswiththeproposedreformsConsiderationforagriculturallandneedstobecoretothemanychangestotheNSW

planningsystemifwearetohaveafoodsecurefuture.

The proposed changes to the legislation pose a number of issues for small-scale

pasturedpig andpoultry farmswhichare likely to trigger theneed forDevelopment

6

Applications. Thiswill place unnecessary burden on low-risk farms,making farming

unviable,andaddtotheadministrativeburdenforlocalcouncils.

Asaresult,concernedorganisationsandindividualsfromNSWandacrossAustraliaare

banding together to lobby for significant changes to the proposed regulations. These

includebutarenotlimitedto:

• SouthernHarvestAssociation• SAGE• SCPASouthEastProducers• SmallFarmsNetworkCapital

Region• SouthsideMarketsCanberra• CanberraRegionalFarmers

Markets• SlowFoodOrganisationsofNSW• PastureRaisedOnOpenFields

(PROOF)• MyFarmShop• SlowFoodHunterValley• AllsunFarm• GundarooTiller• CaroolaFarm• JennieCurtis

• SantosOrganics• LouiseGlut• DianaSaucedo• ChickenCaravan• FoodFossickers• FriendsoftheEarthAustralia• OpenFoodNetwork• SocialFoodProject• YouthFoodMovementAustralia• ByronShireCouncil• FEEDNorthernRivers• ByronFairFood• QueanbeyanPalerangRegional

Council• JoeFriend• RichardStone

Wewouldencourage theNSWPlanningMinister, theHonourableAnthonyRoberts, to

engage with AFSA to ensure new legislation is appropriately drafted to protect the

growingsmall-scalefarmingsector.

AFSA'sconcernsovertheimpactofproposedreformsinVictoriaonsmall-scalepasture-

basedfarmingwerenotedbytheHonourableJaalaPulford,MinisterforAgricultureand

RegionalDevelopment,afterwemadeasubmissiontothedraftPlanningforSustainable

AnimalIndustries.Asaresultofourefforts,theMinisterhasinstructedherDepartment

toworkwithustoworkthroughtheconcernsastheyfinalisethereforms.

WewouldencouragetheNSWDepartmentofPlanningandEnvironmenttodothesame

byengagingAFSAinconsultationdirectly.

7

ExecutiveSummaryThis response to theProposedStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy (SEPP) (Primary

Production and Rural Development) and related planning reforms outlines the

concernsofourorganisationandourmembers.Itwillexpandontheissuesrelatingto

the proposed definitions, animal number thresholds and exemptions, as well as the

effects of peri-urban areas on farmers whose access to communities via farmers’

marketsisconsiderablyaffected.Thissubmissionfocussesontheimpactsonthemeat,

eggandfreshvegetableproducerswhosecommercialviabilitywillbemostaffected.

AmajorissueAFSAhaveidentifiedistheproposeddevelopmentconsentrequirement

forcommercialoperationsinvolvingany ‘intensive’cattle,sheeporgoatfeedlot,dairy

(restricted), pig farm, or egg or poultry production facility within 500metres of a

dwelling not associated with the development or in an ‘environmentally sensitive

area’.2Such a distance will deter current and prospective vendors of small lots who

wish to start a farm. This onerous trigger of a 500m setback from neighbouring

residences and sensitive areaswouldmean that small-scale pig and poultry farming

would be almost impossiblewithout Development Consent due to physical property

sizesandgeographicalconstraints.

AFSAhaveprepared12recommendations–thefirstinformstheneedtoconductamore

thoroughliteraturereviewbeforefinalisingthereforms.Weproposethatthe

GovernmentfosterNSW’sfoodsecuritybytakingintoconsiderationresearchdiscussed

belowinrelationtoperi-urbanplanning.Indirectresponsetotherelevantsubdivision

andRighttoFarmPolicyrelatedreforms,werecommendthattheGovernmentcreate

moreflexibilityfortheconstructionofdwellingsbuiltinsupportoftheagricultural

purposesonfarms,whilemaintainingandstrengtheningguardsagainstconverting

farmstopurelyresidential,lifestyleproperties.

Ourthirdrecommendationpinpointsarepetitiveissuethroughoutthereforms–thatis,

the inconsistent interpretations that can be made from certain definitions. All

operations apart from those that are ‘extensive agriculture’ are currently defined as

‘intensive livestock agriculture’ unless they qualify as a ‘Designated Development’.

Definitionsshouldreflectthescaleofoperationsdeterminedintheproposedthreshold

2Including:CoastalwatersoftheState;Acoastallake;SEPPwetlandsorrainforests;andAquaticreservesunderrelevantMarineParkandmarineparkmanagementacts.

8

clause. This should be amended by classifying operations below the proposed

Development Consent thresholds as ‘extensive agriculture’ so that the definition for

‘extensive agriculture’ can include small-scale pasture-based pig farms and poultry

farms. In conjunction with this, we recommend that all shed based pig farms are

includedinthe‘feedlot’definition.Tofurtherhighlighttheneedforlessambiguityinthe

definitions, we recommended that not only should all pastured livestock be defined

under ‘extensive agriculture’, but that the term be changed to ‘Pastured Animal

Production’.

We propose appropriate assessment tools be used for determining Development

Consent forpasturedpigandpoultry farms.AFSAhascreated formsthatcouncilsand

farmerscouldusetoassessthetriggertojudgeafarm‘intensive’orotherwise.Inlieuof

the500msetbackproposedtoallfarmingsystemswithoutdistinction,werecommend

that, where feeding infrastructure is mobile, a setback from neighbouring dwellings,

waterways or ‘environmentally sensitive areas’ be set at no more than 20m. The

Governmentshouldalsoidentifysuitableresourcesinrelationtoplanningcompliance.

WerecommendthatitdevelopCodesofPracticeincloseconsultationwithsmall-scale

pasturedpigandpoultryfarmers.WehavepreparedadraftforPasturedPigProduction

inAppendixC.

Additionally,regulatoryoutcomesmustbealignedwithcurrentindustrystructureand

animaloperationsinthestate.Toachievethis,theGovernmentshouldurgentlyprepare

aregulatoryimpactstatementtoeffectivelydevisethereforms.

This submission attempts to communicate to the Department of Planning and

Environment that the reforms do not support newcomers to the industry and on a

number of accounts contradict the aims and objectives of the new SEPP and related

reforms.

Whattheproposedplanningprovisionsmeanforfarmers

Mostnewsmall-scalepigandpoultryfarmerswillberequiredtodealwithunnecessary,

prohibitive and expensive red tape, byway of Development Applications triggered by

thresholds of animal numbers (for example, >1000 birds or >200pigs or 20 sows) or

beingwithin500mofan‘environmentallysensitivearea’.

9

This will in practice make it unviable to establish a farming operation, especially on

smallacreageproperties,whenfarmersareconsideringraisinganimals.Thiswillhavea

follow-onimpactonlocalemploymentopportunitiesbothonfarmsandinvalue-adding

industries.

This is important given that one objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone is to

promotediversity.

Whattheproposedplanningprovisionsmeanforeaters

Accesstogenuinefree-rangemeat,agrowingconsumermarket,willbecomeharderas

small-scale pastured livestock farmers cease to growunder the pressures of an unfair

planningscheme.Thiscomesontopofdiminishingaccesstoprocessingfacilities.NSW,

the‘farmingcapitalofAustralia’,couldseethedemiseoftheveryfarmingsystemsthat

underpinthediversityandqualityofproduceforwhichourstateisfamous.

WhatAFSAmemberswant

We call on NSW Planning Minister, the Honourable Anthony Roberts to adjust the

definitionsof‘intensive’and‘extensive’agriculturetoallowforsmall-scalepasturedpig

and poultry farming to continuewithout impediment through improved definitions in

theStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicies that,ascurrentlyproposed, labelallpigand

poultryfarmers‘intensive.’

Wewillrequest,bywayofpetitiontotheLegislativeAssembly, thatclearerdefinitions

arecreated.

ListofRecommendations

Recommendation1:ThattheGovernmentfosterNSW’sfoodsecurityand

strengthenitseffortstoidentify‘FoodSheds’byconsultingwithshiresandtaking

intoconsiderationresearchbyUTSandSPUNinrelationtoperi-urbanplanning.

Recommendation2:Createmoreflexibilityfortheconstructionofdwellingsbuilt

insupportoftheagriculturalpurposesonfarms,whilemaintainingand

strengtheningguardsagainstconvertingfarmstopurelyresidential,lifestyle

properties.

10

Recommendation3:Amendtheinterpretationalinconsistencybyclassifying

operationsbelowthethresholdsas‘extensiveagriculture’sothatthedefinition

for‘extensiveagriculture’canincludepasture-basedpigfarmsandpoultryfarms.

Recommendation4:Thatallshedbasedpigfarmsbeincludedinthe‘feedlot’

definitionandthatpasturedpigfarmsbeincludedinthe‘extensive’definition.

Recommendation5:Thatthetriggertojudgeapasturedpigfarm‘intensive’beset

atmorethan25SPU/Ha,subjecttomeetingminimumstandards.

Recommendation6:Thatallshedbasedpoultryfarmsbeincludedinthe‘feedlot’

definitionandthatpasturedpoultryfarmsbeincludedinthe‘extensive’

definition.

Recommendation7:Thatthetriggertojudgeapasturedpoultryfarmas

‘intensive’besetatmorethan450birds/Ha,subjecttomeetingminimum

standards.

Recommendation8:Thatallpasturedlivestockaredefinedunder‘extensive

agriculture’,butthatthetermbechangedto‘PasturedAnimalProduction’.

Recommendation9:Thatwherefeedinginfrastructureismobile,asetbackfrom

neighbouringdwellings3,waterwaysorenvironmentallysensitiveareasbesetat

nomorethan20m.

Recommendation10:Toformulateaseparatedefinitionforsmall-acre(1-40ha)

plantagriculturewhichdoesnotrequireDevelopmentConsent,butratherfull

andcomprehensivenotificationtotherelevantconsentauthority.

Recommendation11:DevelopCodesofPracticeincloseconsultationwithsmall-

scalepasturedpigandpoultryfarmers.(SeedraftCodeofPracticeforPastured

PigProductioninAppendixCforwhatsuchcodesmightinclude.)

Recommendation12:Thataregulatoryimpactstatementbepreparedurgently.

3(thatisnotassociatedwiththefarmingoperation)

11

TheCaseforReform

AnimalIndustriesinAustralia

Industrial agriculturalmethods require further investigation and should be subject to

strictregulation.

A growing scientific literature 4 demonstrates that the high-density housing of

genetically-cloned stock, immunologically depressed by breeding and environmental

circumstances, in small spaces on the grounds of economies of scale, results inmany

acuteinfections—bacterialandviral—withintheveryenvironmentsinwhichtheytend

to evolve greater transmissibility and resistance. The sheds ostensibly built to keep

diseaseoutareinsteadtheenvironmentsinwhichpathogenicspeciesflourish.

HighlypathogenicstrainsofavianinfluenzaAH7N4andH7N7,forinstance,havebeen

documentedon largebroiler and layerpoultry operations inVictoria andQueensland

sincethe1970s.Anon-siteincreaseinthevirulenceofanavianinfluenzaH7N4strain

fromlowtohighpathogenicitywasdocumentedonalargecommercialbroiler-breeder

operationof128,000birds.5

It is the concentration, scale, and throughput of this method of intensive animal

production that are driving the new disease ecology, selecting for the evolution of

greaterdeadliness,andincreasingthegeographicextentofpathogentransmission.

Industrial pigs have repeatedly suffered disease outbreaks in Australia, including

atrophic rhinitis, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Haemophilus parasuis, Pasteurella

multocida,porcinecircovirus2,andswinefluH1N1(2009).Manysuchacutepathogens

canpersist,andspreadacrossmultipleregional farms,onlyunder intensive industrial

modelsofproduction.6

Thekeydifferencebetweenhighlyindustrialmodelsandtheagroecologicalsmall-scale

farmsAFSAmembersmanageishighlightedinthisaccountofthestructuraldifferences

inhowindustrialandagroecologicalfarmersheedthesignstheirlandoffersthem: 4WallaceR.G.andWallace,R.(eds).2016.NeoliberalEbola:ModelingDiseaseEmergencefromFinancetoForestandFarm.Springer,Switzerland.5D.E.Swayne&D.L.Suarez,2000.HighlyPathogenicAvianInfluenza,Rev.sci.tech.Off.int.Epiz.,19(2),463-482.6Wallace&Wallace,2016.

12

High-inputmethodsreducetheneedforthegrowertopayattentionor

respond to ecological feedback cycles in the agroecosystem. For

example, instead of responding agroecologically to feedback cycles of

soilerosionandexcessivesurfacewaterrunofforleachingbyincreasing

soil organic matter (and thus increasing crop diversity and

incorporating forages and green manures), conventional producers

are—bothstructurallyandrhetorically—encouragedtosimplychange

the nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium balance of synthetic fertilizer

application. The result is an agricultural system that is stabilized

through significant investments in engineering, infrastructure, and

policy, rather than agroecological system knowledge (Berardi et al.

2011).7

Scientists have turned their attention to the growth in pastured pig and poultry

productionandfoundmanyecologicalandhealthbenefits:

Outdoorpigfarmingbecamemorepopularinthelast20yearswiththe

riseinpublicinterestinanimalwelfareandproductsoriginatingfrom

production systemswhich take careof theenvironment. It isdesigned

asa system thatallows thepigsoutsideaccess includingcontactwith

soilandgrowingplants(Honeymanetal.,2001) inwhichanimalscan

express their natural behavior (Miao et al., 2004). If this production

system is coupled with good management practices it can result in

acceptableproductionperformance,highqualityofporkwithsuperior

taste and health benefits for humans due to the high level of

unsaturated fatty acids (Simopoulos, 1991) and absence of residues

(growth promoters, antibiotics, pesticides) or biological agents

(microorganisms,parasites).8

Climaticconditions,landsize,andsoilcharacteristicsarethemainfactorsthatmustbe

consideredinpasturedpigandpoultrymanagement.Theycomprisethemanagementof

housing and feeding, including the type of buildings and materials used, space

7RotzS.

&FraserE.,2015.Resilienceandtheindustrialfoodsystem:analyzingtheimpactsofagricultural

industrializationonfoodsystemvulnerability,JEnvironStudSci,5:459–473.8Salajpal,Karolyi,Lukovic.2013,SanitaryAspectsofOutdoorFarmingSystems,ActaargiculturaeSlovenica,Supplement4,109–117,Ljubljana.

13

allowance,groundcover,groupsize, typeof feedsandfeedingregime,managementof

matinganddiseaseprevention.

Whilethegreaterrisksofindustriallivestockproductionarewellknown,andtoalarge

extent appropriately managed through each Australian state’s planning provisions,

there is an element of regulatory capture that appears to be growing worse, as

evidencedbythecurrentdraftplanningprovisionsthatwouldcodifywhatappeartobe

an inadvertent inclusion of small-scale pastured livestock farming in the definitions

designedforhigh-risk,high-densityintensivepigandpoultryproduction.

It isuseful toexamineanexample fromoverseas thatdemonstrateswhat canhappen

when a well-meaning government responds to a food safety or ecological crisis and

enacts legislation that serves to promote industrial food systems while hindering

regenerative,localisedfoodproduction.Significantly,theCanadianauthorityresponded

to the public’s concerns and a compromise was achieved that protected all scales of

farmingsatisfactorily.

AftertheBSEcrisishitBritishColumbia,theCanadianFoodInspectionAgencyrushedtoadoptahighlyprescriptive foodpolicythatrequiredall meat slaughter to be conducted at centralized, publically licensedplants. Predictably, this policy served to protect industrial, export-oriented production against global fears of Canadian meatcontamination, while enforcing impossibly onerous transportrequirementsonmorerural, isolated, small-scalemeatproducers.Thesubsequent rise in concentration of meat production, slaughter, andprocessingthroughoutwesternCanadaledtovocalstrugglesoverfoodsafetystandardsandsystemvulnerability.

Ontheonehand,alternativeandsmall-scaleproducersandadvocatescontendedthat,giventhelarge-scaleandbroaddistributioninherentinconcentrated industrial production systems, the risk of a widespreadoutbreakwashigh (Miewaldetal.2013).Hence, theyargued that theshorter geographic distance between farm-slaughter-customer, whichsmall-scale production and direct to consumer marketing provided,reducedriskalongthesupplychain(ibid).Assuch,proponentsofmorelocal food systems concluded that small-scale producers and theirapplicabledistributionnetworksshouldbevaluedandsupportedwithinBritishColumbia’sregulation.

Industrial production proponents, on the other hand, argued thatcentralized production allowed for more efficient monitoring andsurveillance. In theend, theMiewaldetal. (2013) study found thatbyopening up the policy (and the definition of ‘risk’within the policy inparticular) to include an appreciation for diversity of scale anddistribution,bothproducersandregulatorscouldfacilitateflexibilityinenforcement and reduce systemic risk within the meat productionsystem. In effect, these amendments helped to build a more nuanced

14

meat inspection policy that appreciated the role that different scalesand methods of production and distribution had to play in bufferingsystemicrisk.9

As the Canadian authorities recognised, farmers committed to producing healthy,

sustainable food for their local communities should have assistance, support and

training for the continual transitions inherent to genuinely regenerative forms of

production.Small-scale farmersacrossAustraliaarealreadyengaged inagroecological

practices that provide nutritious food for their communities while caring for animal

welfare,thesoilandallothercomponentsoftheirlocalecosystems.

TheGovernmentisoftheviewthat,ifafree-rangepoultryfarmisproposednexttoan

existingpoultry farm, theexistingoperatormayhaveconcernsaboutbiosecurityrisks

to their farm. Currently, the planning reforms suggest (erroneously) that risks of

outdooroperationsaregreaterthanthoseofindooroperations.10

Thecaseforagroecology

Agroecological farming is the applicationof ecology to thedesign andmanagement of

sustainable agroecosystems11. Agroecological farmers favour long-term strategies that

are flexible and can be adjusted and re-evaluated over time. They aim to diversify

productiononfarm,whichcreatesresilienceecologically,andforfarmersandeatersin

the face of climate change, but also for shifting market prices12. At the core of

agroecologyistheideathatthetypeoffarmingundertakenmustbeappropriateforthat

particularenvironment.

This farming philosophy has been gaining an increasing following globally as farmers

are beginning to seek out more sustainable farming methods. The concept has been

endorsedby theFood&AgricultureOrganisationof theUN (FAO)as ameans to feed

growingpopulationssustainably13.

Theaimistodesigncomplexanddiverseagroecosystemsforalltheindividualpartsto

eventuallysupportandsustaineachothertopreventtheoutbreaksofpestsanddisease

9RotzS.

&FraserE.,2015.Resilienceandtheindustrialfoodsystem:analyzingtheimpactsofagricultural

industrializationonfoodsystemvulnerability,JEnvironStudSci,5:459–473.10Page20,DraftPlanningGuidelines–IntensiveLivestockAgricultureDevelopment.11Gliessman,S.R.,Agroecology:theecologyofsustainablefoodsystems.2007,BocaRaton:CRCPress.12Parfitt,C.,etal.,THEPEOPLE’SFOODPLAN.Acommon-senseapproachtoafair,sustainableandresilientfoodsystem.,inWorkingPaper,C.RichardsandN.Rose,Editors.2013,AustralianFoodSovereigntyAlliance:Kambah.13FAO,FinalreportfortheInternationalSymposiumonAgroecologyforFoodSecurityandNutrition.2015,FoodandAgricultureOrganisationoftheUnitedNations:Rome.

15

common in mono-culture systems. In practice this means incorporating a range of

livestock,grainsandplantsinwaysthatminimiseexternalinputsbyre-usingwasteon

the farm, spreading out the risk of relying on just one crop, conserving water and

lookingafterthesoil14.

ThedraftSEPPExplanationofIntendedEffect(EIE)hasindicatedthatthereformswill

facilitateanadaptiveapproachtonewandemergingagriculturalpractices, technology

andindustry.

FoodSecurity:PreservingValuableLandforFarming

The increasing attention of the NSW Premier and the Department of Planning and

Environment on further housing for the state15has made negative impacts on rural

zones in NSW. Peri-urban areas have been targeted as future growth spots, which

endangers precious prime agricultural land previously reserved for food production.

The increased restriction of rural activities in the Sydney CatchmentWater Area has

also triggered issues among NSW's small producers, for the impacts of rural

developmentintheseareashasbeenbundledintoonecollectiveissueratherthanone

tobemanagedbasedonintensityoftheculpableindustries.

"In fact, thebenefitofSydney’sagriculture to theeconomy isestimatedatupwardsof

$4.5billion.Lossofagriculturethereforepresentsseriousriskstotheresilienceofthe

city,tothehealthofresidentsandtheviabilityoffarmers’operations."16

Data from the Sydney Peri-Urban Network Issues Paper shows that the peri-urban

areaisasignificantproducerofnurseries,perishablevegetables,meatchickens,ducks,

turkeys,otherpoultryandeggs.Thedatarepresentshistoricaltiesbetweenagriculture

andmarketsontheedgesofurbanareas.Itidentifiesthatthisisbecauseofproximityto

marketsandgoodgrowingclimate,accesstowaterandsoils.17

The reforms must address this underlying issue of the perceived or actual conflict

between residential and agricultural land use. The Rural Production Zones must

maintain the objectives to preserve land for agricultural use, as the pressures of

14SOCLA,Acroecology:KeyConcepts,PrinciplesandPractices,ed.T.W.N.a.S.C.L.d.A.(SOCLA).2015,Penang:Malaysia:Jutaprint.15NSWDepartmentofPlanningandEnvironment,DevelopmentAssessmentBestPracticeGuide,March2017,pg.2.16UniversityofTechnologySydney.ThefutureofSydney'sfoodbowl.17February2016.https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/institute-sustainable-futures/news/future-sydneys-food-bowl17EdgeLandPlanning,SydneyPeri-UrbanNetworkIssuesPaper,September2015,pg.9.

16

development fornon-agriculturalusesarebeing felt inperi-urbanareas thathavenot

been responsiblymanaged to date, and have forced farming further and further from

majorcitiesandregionalcities.

TheobjectivesoftheZoneRU1PrimaryProductionzoneare:

• Toencouragesustainableprimaryindustryproductionbymaintainingandenhancingthenaturalresourcebase.

• Toencouragediversityinprimaryindustryenterprisesandsystemsappropriateforthearea.

• Tominimisethefragmentationandalienationofresourcelands.• Tominimiseconflictbetweenlanduseswithinthiszoneandlanduses

withinadjoiningzones.

TheobjectivesoftheZoneRU2RuralLandscapeare:• Toencouragesustainableprimaryindustryproductionbymaintainingandenhancing

thenaturalresourcebase.• Tomaintaintherurallandscapecharacteroftheland.• Toprovideforarangeofcompatiblelanduses,includingextensiveagriculture.

TheobjectivesoftheZoneRU4PrimaryProductionSmallLotsare:• Toenablesustainableprimaryindustryandothercompatiblelanduses.• Toencourageandpromotediversityandemploymentopportunitiesinrelationto

primaryindustryenterprises,particularlythosethatrequiresmallerlotsorthataremoreintensiveinnature.

• Tominimiseconflictbetweenlanduseswithinthiszoneandlanduseswithinadjoiningzones.18

IftheNSWGovernmentiscommittedtoruraldevelopment,thenitoughttosubstantiate

thiscommitmentbysupportingagriculturalusesthatarecompatiblewiththearea.The

Governmenthasstatedthatitiscommittedtoreducinglanduseconflictandrecognised

that“[p]rimaryproducers…facechallengesfromchanginglandusesinruraland

regionalareasthatcanleadtoconflicts,includingincreasedsensitiveusessuchas

dwellings.”19TheGovernmenthasalsoidentifiedopportunitiesfor“targeted

settlement”.Low-riskagroecologicalsystemsareclearlybestmanagementpracticefor

NSW’sfuturefoodsupply,butunfortunatelyhavenotbeensurveyedbythedraftersof

thenewSEPPandrelatedreforms.Whileimpactsonneighbourssuchasnoise,lightand

18Part2,Clause2.3,StandardInstrument—PrincipalLocalEnvironmentalPlan.19Page6oftheExplanationofIntendedEffect,accessedat:http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Other/primary-production-and-rural-development-eie-2017-10.ashx

17

dustareunavoidableinintensivesystems,muchistobegainedintermsofland-useco-

existenceifagroecologicalsystemsweretobesupported.20

The NSW Government conducts thorough geospatial mapping exercises to identify

“prime agricultural land” or ‘Strategic Agricultural Land’.21AFSA encourages the

Governmenttofurtherprotecttheseselectedareas,toexpandthem,andtostrengthen

itseffortstoidentify“FoodBowls”22or"FoodSheds".

The Sydney Peri-Urban Network of Councils (SPUN) compromises 12 Councils

surrounding Sydney and formed to stimulate discussion and action by all levels of

Government. SPUNwrote in its 2015 Report that "peri-urban areas play a vital food

securityroleforSydney(asafoodbowlandduetorelativelylow“foodmiles”)".23

TheUniversityofTechnologySydney’s(UTS’)FoodShedProjectisbeingconductedby

the Institute of Sustainable Futures as part of one of their key research areas, ‘Food

Futures’. The research produced ‘Mapping Sydney’s Potential Foodsheds’ through

funding from the LGNSW Building Resilience to Climate Change scheme. SPUN,

representedbyWollondillyShireCouncil,isakeypartnerontheproject.

TheaimoftheprojectistounderstandthemajorfactorsthataffectSydney’sfuturefood

production. Interactive spatial maps of Sydney’s future food production and demand

until2031showtheconsequencesoffailingtovalueperi-urbanfoodproductioninthe

current planning strategy. One such consequence is unconstrained population growth

planned under the SydneyMetropolitan Strategy. By engaging with stakeholders, the

FoodShedProjectresearchespotentialimpacts,desirabilityandfeasibilityofarangeof 20ExplanationofIntendedEffect,page6:“Evenwithbestpracticemanagementsomefarmswillhaveresidualnoise,light,dustandotherimpactsthataffectneighbours.”21SharingandEnablingEnvironmentalData.Datasetsaccessibleat:https://datasets.seed.nsw.gov.au/dataset?q=agriculture&sort=score%20desc%2C%20metadata_modified%20descAccessedvia:https://data.gov.au/dataset/42e2a51d-3c11-431f-ac62-f8511c85951622In Victoria, the University of Melbourne’s Foodprint Melbourne project have published a reporthighlightingthatMelbourne’s“foodbowl”isanimportantbuildingblockinaresilientandsustainablefoodfutureforthecity.ThereportsummarisesprojectfindingsaboutwhatgrowsinMelbourne'sfoodbowlandwhat ittakestofeedthecity,anditoutlinestheeconomicvaluegeneratedbyMelbourne'sfoodbowl.Thereporthighlightsthat:1)ThelossofMelbourne'sfoodbowlisnotinevitableasthecitygrowsifgrowthonthecityfringecanbelimitedtoexistinggrowthcorridorsandstrongtargetsaresetforurbaninfillandincreasedurbandensity;and2)Melbournecanplanforaresilientcityfoodbowlthatprovideshealthyfoodforagrowingpopulation,promotesavibrantregionalfoodeconomyandactsasabufferagainstfuturefoodsystemshocks.”23WollondillyShireCouncil,SPUNActionPlan,2015,accessedat:http://www.wollondilly.nsw.gov.au/assets/Documents/Planning-and-Development/SPUN/Sydney-PeriUrban-Network-of-Councils-SPUN-2015-Action-Plan.pdf

18

futurefoodproductionscenariosandhowthiscontributestotheresilienceofcitieslike

Sydneyinthefaceoffutureshocksandstresses.24

Theproject essentiallymappedwhere currentandpotential foodproducingareasare

located around Sydney.25In the range of scenarios modelled, the first assessed what

wouldhappen if Sydney’s agriculturewasnot protected and theproposedpopulation

growthunder theMetroStrategyoccurred in anunconstrainedway.This is shown in

Figure1.

Figure1.potentiallossoffoodproductionbyLGAunderthe‘2031urbansprawl’scenario.

24UniversityofTechnologySydney.PlanningSydney'sFoodFutures.Accessedat:https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/institute-sustainable-futures/news/planning-sydneys-food-futures25MapscreatedbySydneyFoodFutures(2015-2016):https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/institute-sustainable-futures/news/future-sydneys-food-bowl

Accessedvia:http://www.sydneyfoodfutures.net/

19

Figure2:Permanentlossoffoodproductionunderurbansprawlscenario.

Figure 2 shows that if the urban sprawl scenario continues uninterrupted, Sydney

stands to lose approximately60%of its total foodproductionby2031. Vegetables,

meat and eggs will be hardest hit:92%of Sydney’scurrent fresh vegetable

productioncouldbelost,91%ofmeatand89%ofeggs(Figure3below).

The project found that this is directly caused by the currentplanning system, which

tendsnottoprioritiseagricultureasa landuse,meaningurbansprawlintoperi-urban

areas ispermitted.The scenariowasbasedonSydney’smetropolitan strategy,APlan

forGrowingSydney,whichallocatesnewpopulationgrowth toeach localgovernment

area, and, concentrates urban growth around North West and South West Growth

Centres. Consequently, loss of fresh food production is greatest in Wollondilly,

Liverpool,PenrithandHawkesburyareas.

20

Figure3:Foodlossbyfoodtypeunderurbansprawlscenario.As a consequence of this loss of agricultural land to urban expansion,coupled with 1.6million extra mouths to feed, food production in the basin would only be able tofeed6%ofSydneyinsteadofthecurrent20%,increasingSydney’svulnerabilitytoarangeofrisks.

In a second scenario, the project assessedwhat would happen if urban development

occurredonexistingurbanlandor‘lowerpriority’agriculturalland.

Somewhat surprisingly, thisscenario does not result in much protection of Sydney’sagricultural land. That is, the loss of agricultural land is only marginally less than theurbansprawlscenariowithnoprotection…ThisisbecausethereisnoClass1agriculturalland in the Sydney Basin, resulting in very little preservation of existing agriculturalproduction, and hence losses are significant. This means Sydney will still face the samevulnerabilitiesastheUrbanSprawlscenario.

The third scenario prioritised agriculture, and predicted the result of the proposed

population growthunder theMetro Strategy if it occurred in a constrainedway, such

that current urban development could intensify to high density, but not expand onto

existingagriculturalland.

This scenarioessentiallyprotects thecurrentagriculturalbase, in termsofproduction.Ifwe chooseapatternof urbandevelopment that involvesdensification– that is, utilizingtheexistingurbanareasbetter,growingup insteadofout,wecouldcontinuetoproducearound half a milliontonnes of food a year.Although importantly,as a proportion ofSydney’s growing fooddemand, food production declines, to only meet14%of Sydney’sdemand. This raises the question of whetherprotecting the current agricultural base is

21

thereforesufficient,or ifweneedto increaseagriculturalproductivity too?Sydney is lessresilientthanMelbourne(andthenationalaverage)intermsoftheproportionofthecitypopulationitcanfeed.

In the fourth scenario, the project hypothesised what were to happen if Sydney

maximiseditsagriculturalproductionintermsofhighestyields(tonnesperkm2).

Figure3.potentialgainsinfoodproductionbyLocalGovernmentArea(LGA)underthe‘intensiveagriculture’scenario.In thisscenario, existing farmland is essentially converted into agricultural productionsystemsthatmaximiseoutput,suchasintensivehorticulture(greenhouses),poultryshedsand feedlots. While this scenario ignores sustainability factors like environmentalpollution, reduced urban amenity, animalwelfare and sustainable diets, it doesindicatethat hypotheticallySydney could increase current food production from 580,000 tonnesper yeareight-foldto5,280,000 tonnes of foodper year (figure3).Indeed, Sydney couldbecome an ‘exporter’ of vegetables, eggs and meat if agricultural productivity wasmaximised and protected.The hypothetical gains in this scenario are largely associatedwith converting grazing lands in Wingecarribee to intensive livestock and vegetableproduction,andtoalesserextentintensifyingagricultureinHawkesburyandShoalhavenlocalgovernmentareas.

The Institute cautions thatnotallofthislandwouldbesuitableforintensiveagriculture,and many caveats apply to the plausibility and practicality of this scenario given risksrelated to profitability, capital investment and other matters such as biosecurity. Thishypothetical scenario is only intended toprovidean ideaof thepotentialmaximum food

22

production that could be squeezed out of the land, and is not intended to indicate adesirablepathforthefuture.26

ChangestogreaterNSWarea

In addition to the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, the Greater SydneyCommissionAct

2015wassetupasaregimeforregionalanddistrictplanninginthegreaterproportion

ofNSW.Arangeofdevelopmentcodeswereexpandedandstandardised,andregional

planshavenowbeenbroughtaboutastheGovernmentfulfillsitsambitionsto“makeit

happen”.1Considerationforagriculturallandneedstobecoretothemanychangesto

theNSWplanningsystem.

The pressures of a growing populationmust be dealt with in the residential suite of

zones, not in Primary Production, Rural Landscape, and Primary Production in Small

Lotszones.88%ofNSWFarmersrespondingtooursurveyarelocatedinRU1andRU2

zones.

This is especially critical in the face of the negative impacts of climate change on

Australia’scapacitytogrowfoodonthelimitedarable landavailable,mostofwhichis

concentrated around cities. If the Government continues to allow inappropriate

encroachmentandurbangrowthintoviablefarmland,futuregenerationswillbecome

foodinsecure.Afoodsecureandfoodsovereignfuturedependsonappropriateplanning

controlsthatpreservefarmlandinperpetuity.

In the caseofpasturedpigandpoultry farms,wepropose that they shouldbewholly

unshackledfromthewell-documentedenvironmentalconsequences27oftheirindustrial

counterpartsandtreated independently,becausetheydonotposeasignificantrisk to

environment or amenity. We would recommend that the Government consult with

shireswithgrowingpopulationsofpasturedpigandpoultryfarms,suchastheforward-

thinkingWollondilly,MacleayValleyandQueanbeyanPalerangRegionalCouncilswho

share our concerns about the overly onerous requirements of the current scheme for

small-scaleproducers.

Recommendation1:ThattheGovernmentfosterNSW’sfoodsecurityand

strengthenitseffortstoidentify‘FoodSheds’byconsultingwithshiresand 26LargepartsofthistextanddatareflecttheoriginalworkofSydneyFoodFutures.27GowriKoneswaranandDanielleNierenberg,GlobalFarmAnimalProductionandGlobalWarming:ImpactingandMitigatingClimateChange,accessedat:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/

23

takingintoconsiderationresearchbyUTSandSPUNinrelationtoperi-urban

planning.

SubdivisionofRuralLandChanges to the rural subdivision ruleshave flowoneffects from the focusonhousing

development in NSW28, especially around Sydney. This is directly relevant to the

mismanagement of designated developments in NSW. The SPUN Action Plan dated 2

October 2015 identified the "ongoing lack of sound strategic approaches to the

managementofperi-urbanareasiscontributingtothedisappearanceofSydney’srural

landscapes’.29Designated Developments and the Sydney Catchment area becoming

exclusivelyresidentialandincreasinglyrestrictiveofruralactivities.

The Government deems subdivision laws as 'consistent with the overarching policy

objectiveofprovidingflexibilityforfarmerswithoutencouragingunplannedresidential

development’. It also states that any updates will protect productive rural land for

futuregenerationsandminimisepotentiallanduseconflict.30

AFSArespectfullysubmitsthattheregenerative,agroecologicalfarmingmovement

offersanalternativeinwhichincreasedpopulationonfarmsisdesirableandsupports

thepurposeoffarmingasthepriorityactivity.AgrarianintellectualWendellBerry

famouslycalledforabetterratioof‘eyestoacres’–thatis,morepeoplewatchingand

workingthelandtoensureitiscaredforattentivelyandsustainably.

FormerUNSpecialRapporteurontheRighttoFoodOlivierdeSchutterhasalsopointed

outthatagroecologyis‘knowledgeandlabourintensive’–surelywelcomeconsidering

thepotentialemploymentopportunitiesandslowingofrural-urbanmigration.

Allowingformultipledwellingsonwhatwouldbeclassifiedasinglefarmwillaid

farmerswishingtopracticemultigenerationalfarming.Thiscouldallowasmoother

transitioninthefarmingpopulationasyoungerfarmerswillhavetheopportunitytolive

onfarmwiththeirownfamilieswhiletheylearnbydoing.Furthermore,holisticfarming

28NewSouthWalesGovernment,DevelopmentAssessmentBestPracticeGuide,201729SydneyPeri-UrbanNetworkofCouncils,ActionPlan,2015.Accessedat:http://www.wollondilly.nsw.gov.au/assets/Documents/Planning-and-Development/SPUN/Sydney-PeriUrban-Network-of-Councils-SPUN-2015-Action-Plan.pdf30http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Factsheets-and-faqs/fact-sheet-subdivision-of-rural-land-for-primary-production-2017-11-03.ashx

24

onasingleplotoflandhasthepotentialtosupportseveralfamiliesmakingtheirliving

fromvariousfarmingenterprisesthatsupporteachothersociallyandecologically.

WhileAFSAstronglysupportstheneedtorecogniseagricultureasthepriorityactivity

intheruralzones,weseeaneedtooffermoreflexibilitytoenablefarmstoconstruct

suitabledwellingsfortherichcommunityofworkersneededtomanagethesesystems,

wherethosedwellingsaregenuinelybuiltinsupportofagriculturalpurposes.

Recommendation2:Createmoreflexibilityfortheconstructionofdwellingsbuilt

insupportoftheagriculturalpurposesonfarms,whilemaintainingand

strengtheningguardsagainstconvertingfarmstopurelyresidential,lifestyle

properties.

IssueswiththeProposedPlanningProvisions

InterpretingtheProposedDefinitions

The proposed amendments aim to clarifywhether a farm is ‘extensive’ or ‘intensive’.

However,wedonotbelievethishasyetbeenachieved.

Undertheproposeddefinitions,becauseoftheircommercialnatureandexclusionfrom

thedefinitionof‘extensive’,all‘pigfarms’and‘poultryfarms’willbe‘intensivelivestock

production’.

ThesefarmswillthereforegenerallyrequireDevelopmentConsentintheRU1,RU2and

RU4 zones, unless the Local Environment Plan (LEP) allows for intensive agriculture

without consent (to AFSA’s knowledge, no NSW LEPs currently allow intensive

agriculture without consent), or if they are exempt according to the current and

proposedexemptionstobedraftedintotheStandardInstrumentLEP.31

The incorrect classification of most farming practices as ‘intensive’ and therefore

consent-determined is problematic. Regardless of the number of animals, stocking

density, and other considerations, the Standard Instrument LEP determines all

commerciallyrunpigandpoultryfarmsas‘intensive’.

31ProvisionsareproposedtobetransferredintoClause6(1)oftheStandardInstrumentLEP–thisiswhereAFSAunderstandsthe‘thresholdsforexemption’willbecontained.

25

The current definition for ‘intensive livestock agriculture’ requires a farm to satisfy

threeelements:

1)Thefarmiscommercial;

2)Thefarmkeepsorbreedsanytypeoflivestock;and

3)Theanimalsarefedwhollyorsubstantiallywithexternally-sourcedfeed.

However,theelementofbeing'commercial'doesnotnecessitate'intensive'activities.

The proposed reforms will not change the classification of 'intensive livestock

agriculture' (aside from revoking the need to feed animals in a certain way) but

DevelopmentConsentrequirementswillprovide forasimplisticscalewhere intensive

activitiesbelowthethresholdsdonotrequireconsent.

Historically, thegeneralapproachofgovernmentswas tonot requireapproval for the

establishment of a farm in rural zones.32The exception has traditionally been where

farmingactivitiesareintensive.Thekeyissuethathasdevelopedistheover-regulation

of all farming, which unintentionally captures farms where intensive agricultural

techniques (confinement and concentration) have not been implemented, or certainly

not to the levels of efficiency in factory farms, which should be captured under the

‘intensive’ ‘feedlot’ category. Interpreted correctly, this category identifies agriculture

thathaspotentiallyadverseenvironmentalimpacts,aspertheSEPP30.

TheNSWStateGovernmenthascommitted toreducingred tapeandbetterregulation

initiatives.33However,ithasfailedtotakeintoaccountthetypesoffarmingthatpresent

alowrisktohumanhealthandthelandscape,suchasregenerativeandagroecological

farming. AFSA objects to the obligations on farmers to fund the costly process of

attaining Development Consentwhen their practices do not present the high risks of

industriallivestockproduction.

AttachedinAppendixEIsacurrentcasestudyofaPasturedPigoperationinGoulburn

Mulwaree ShireCouncilwhoare in theprocessof applying forDevelopmentConsent,

where costs have already exceeded $12,000. This is for an operation with an annual

turnoverof$150,000and isaclearexampleof the inappropriatenessofscale that the

financialburdenofDevelopmentApplicationsrequires.Othersurveyrespondentshave 32DavidFarrierandPaulStein(Eds)(2011)TheEnvironmentalLawHandbook,5thEdition,RedfernLegalCentrePublishing,ThomsonReuters(Professional)AustraliaLimited.33NewSouthWalesPremierandCabinet,RedTapeReduction,accessedat:https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/programs_and_services/red_tape_reductionNewSouthWalesFinance,ServicesandInnovation,BetterRegulation,accessedat:https://www.finance.nsw.gov.au/better-regulation

26

indicatedcostsintheorderof$2,000to$7,000wheretheyhaveobtainedorareinthe

processofobtainingdevelopmentconsent.Thisisahugefinancialburdenonsmallscale

farmswithturnoversintheorderof$50,000to$150,000.

TheSEPPsshouldfulfiltheiraimsasstatedonpage8oftheEIE.Expressly,theyinclude

“providing simplified assessment requirements for low impact land uses, and

routine and emergency irrigation works.” It also aims to support investment in

sustainable agricultural development. NSW defines ‘sustainable development’ as

development thatmeets the needs of the present generation without compromising the

abilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.34

Whilstthenewdefinitionfor ‘intensive livestockagriculture’ includesanexemption: it

expresslyexcludestheexemptionfrompigfarmsandpoultryfarmsbecauseit“doesnot

include extensive agriculture, aquaculture or the operation of facilities for drought or

similar emergency relief”. In the reform key documents, the Government repeatedly

stateditwouldrecognisethelowrisknatureofsmallfree-rangefarms,butthisisonly

determinedby theabovementioned ‘exemptions’.Although thedefinitionof ‘extensive

agriculture’ includes grazing animals that ‘eatplants growingon the land’ andwill be

amendedtoincludesupplementary,emergencyandtemporaryfeeding, itremainsthat

pasture-based pig and poultry farms will not be considered ‘extensive’ even though

theseanimalsalso ‘eatplantsgrowingon the land’with supplementary feeding. If the

intentionof the reforms is toprovideexemptions forpasture-based farming, then the

exemptionshouldalsoapplytolowriskfarmingpractices.

This interpretational inconsistencyneedstobeamendedconcurrentlywithchangesto

theSEPP.Thelackofclarityinthedefinitionsandpossibledifferencesininterpretation

isnotgoingtosolvethe issuethat theproposed legislationattemptstoaddress,being

clarity.

If, as theEIE says, the intent is for all pig farms to be ‘intensive’, then effectively, the

Government is not treating free-range or pastured pig and poultry farms with

distinctionasithasdonewithcattle,sheepandgoats.Thelegislationrelatingtocattle,

sheepandgoats,correctlyinterprets ‘feedlot’enterprisesas ‘intensive’andthisshould

34Lyster,Rosemaryetal.(2016)EnvironmentalandPlanningLawinNewSouthWales,4thEd.TheFederationPress.Page61.

27

be the same in the pig and poultry industries, where there is a distinction between

pasturedand‘feedlot’productionmethods.

AFSA is aware that Greater Hume Council is making a submission to the NSW

Government to recommend that the SEPP reforms shoulderadicate the evident

ambiguityarounddefinitionsrelatingto‘intensivelivestockagriculture’.

ComplianceactionwastakenbytheCouncilin2015againstacattlefeedlotinCulcairn.

Thepropertyownerdisputedthedefinitionof‘feedlot’andrelevantrestrictionsdidnot

apply. A clause in the current SEPP states Development Consent is not required if a

feedlotis temporary, but as the legislation does not specifytimeframes, itwas argued

the feedlotwas not permanent. The Council was advised that definitions ought to be

giventowordssuchas‘temporary’toavoidsimilardisputesandwilllikelycommenton

thisintheirsubmission.35Whileitistruethatthelivestocksectorisoftencharacterised

by intensification,scaleandregionalconcentration, itshouldnotberegulatedwithout

properclassification.Soundpoliciesstartwiththeacknowledgementsoftheelementsof

the society it regulates: population size, food consumption, the environment and the

typesofindustrypresent.Therefore,alegitimatebutoverlookedpartofthetotaleffort

isthechangingcharacteroflivestockproductionwhichaimstoimprovelocaleconomies

andlandmanagement.

Enforcingscale-appropriateregulationsonallintensiveactivitiesmayprovedifficultas

recognised by the Australian Animal Industries Advisory Committee in the Victorian

reformprocess.Classifyingsmall,pasturebasedfarmsas'extensive'islikelytoalleviate

thisissueandbetterclassifythespectrumoffarmingpractices.

Theproposed clauseonpage44of theEIE (stating the thresholds) shouldpractically

implementadefinition that refers to confinementoperationsandclearlyexclude low-

risk, small scale and pasture-based farms. Small, pastured livestock farms should be

classifiedas‘extensive’,regardlessofthetypeofspecies.

35TheBorderMail,EllenEbsary,atePlanningpoicyreformswill‘meanmorebureaucracy’,26December2017,accessedat:http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/5139963/state-planning-policy-reforms-will-mean-more-bureaucracy/

28

Recommendation 3: Amend the interpretational inconsistency by classifying

operationsbelow the thresholds as ‘extensive agriculture’ so that thedefinition

forextensivecanincludepasture-basedpigfarmsandpoultryfarms.

InconsistentApplicationofExemptionsCurrent exemptions for cattle and pigs will remain and proposed exemptions will

expandthetypesofactivitiesthatcanbeexempt.

That exemptionwill now prohibit operating a new farm up to the boundarywithout

burdensomeDevelopmentConsent.Itisproposedthatexemptoperationswillstillneed

toabidebytheproposed500msetback.

WhileAFSA supports the proposed setback applying to intensive forms of agriculture

such as feedlots, sheds and broiler farms, we believe the exemptions are aimed at

regulating“modern”practicesand facilitatea ‘onesize fitsall’approach(regardlessof

whethertheoperationisindoorsoroutdoors).

‘Exemptdevelopment’hasnotbeenallocatedappropriatelytodeservingpractices.For

example, the management of feral goats is considered to have little impact on the

environment. A feral or ‘rangeland’36goat depot (a property that is used to aggregate

goatspriortosaleorslaughter37)“referstogoatswhichareharvestedandhavenever

beenconfinedtoafeedlotorsubjectedtoanychemicaltreatment”.38Rangelandgoats,

inoperation,isnotunlikeapasture-basedsysteminthatitdoesnotconfineanimalsin

feedlotsanddoesmakeuseofchemicaltreatmentonanimals.Itappearsthisexemption

might exist because goat depots must be accredited with Livestock Production

Assurance(LPA).

All producerswhowish to sellmeat productsmust be accreditedwith the LPA. This

program is designed for regulating the export industry and is based on perceived

market expectations.39As accreditation for small producers is alreadymandated, then

36‘Rangeland’isusedbyindustrytodescribetheenvironmentfromwhichferalgoatshaveoriginatedformarketingpurposes.(EIEpg.12)37andoperatesinaccordancewiththeIndustryNLISStandardsforoperatingaGoatDepotpublishedontheGoatIndustryCouncilofAustraliawebsite.(EIEpg.12)384DPI2012,NLIS:Feralandrangelandgoatshttp://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/732313/NLIS-Feral-and-rangeland-goats-primefact.pdf39MeatandLivestockAustralia,LPARulesandStandards,accessedat:https://www.mla.com.au/meat-safety-and-traceability/red-meat-integrity-system/about-the-livestock-production-assurance-program/lpa-rules--standards/andtheAustralianMeatandLivestockIndustryAct1997

29

application of the exemption for operations such as goat depots should consistently

apply to small-scale pasture-based farms. Small producers ought to qualify for the

exemptioninlieuofbeingexcludedfromthedefinition.

TheEIEstatesonpage7that ‘[w]hereverpossible,mattersrelatedtodeterminingthe

possibilityofdevelopmentanddecision-makingprocessesshouldbeincludedinLEPs.”

As a key consideration, the method by which farmers produce should be included.

Greater recognition of the entire gamut of farming practices is crucial to making a

consistentapproachtoassessingdevelopmentapplicationsacrossthestate.Further,Section76oftheEP&AAct(relatingtoExemptDevelopment)createsscopefor

furtherappropriateexemptionsbecauseitincludesthatexemptactivitieswithminimal

environmental impact should be identified. The Government has not identified this

scopeinthereforms.

ProposedPigFarmProvisions

NSW continues to be the highest exporter of pork in Australia. NSW has the fourth

largest slaughter numbers (under SA, VIC QLD in that order). NSW has the highest

percentageofchangesinslaughternumbercomparedtotheyearbefore.40Additionally,

the increased inland concentration of pig farms41causes demand for this changing

industrytoberegulatedappropriately.

Theproposalinrelationtopigfarmsistolabelallsuchfarms‘intensive’.

Other proposals include: a pig farm accommodating 200 ormore pigs or 20 ormore

sowswillrequireDevelopmentConsent;free-rangeandgenuinepasturedpigfarmsare

not to be excluded, but expressly included in this definition; and exceptionsmade in

landusezoneswhereintensivelivestockdevelopmentispermissible.

Despite theuncertaintyabout the thresholdsunder thestatepolicies, theSEPPNo.30

thresholdsfordevelopmentconsentwillnotbechangedoncetransferredintothesingle

40AustralianPorkLimited(October2017)AustralianImports,ExportsandDomesticProductionReport.Accessedat:https://gallery.mailchimp.com/52db4830e5889ac1d3f58b58d/files/25d921da-5cc8-4465-a4da-f2dca10a186c/ImportsExportsDom_Prod_October_Report_2017_2.pdf41APLresourcefrom2006:Changesintraditionalagricultureandgreaterurbanandenvironmentalpressureshavemeantthatproductionhasmovedawayfromcoastalareas.ExceptforanareaintheRichmond–Tweed,themajorityofthepigsareraisedintheinlandgrain-growingareasofNSW.https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/62916/Understanding_the_pork_industry-Primefact_105-final.pdf

30

SEPP. Thismeans that development consent is still required for pig farmswith 200+

pigsor20+sowsregardlessofthefarmingmethodpracticed.

Conflationof‘PigFarms’The proposals to group all pig farms under the one definition, erases the distinction

between intensively reared animals confined in sheds (effectively feedlots) and

pasturedpigfarms.Thisdoesnotachievetheaimsofgoodplanningprovisions,whichin

thiscaseshouldbetofulfiltheobjectivesoftheRU1PrimaryProductionzone,aswellas

tosupport:

• economicdevelopment inregionalNSWbysupportingthegrowing industryofsmall-scalepasturedpigfarms,whichalsooftenbringsignificantagri-tourismtotheregions;

• protection of the environment through clear land use terms and a sharedunderstandingoftheriskprofilesofdifferentproductionmodels;and

• communityexpectationsandamenityaremetandmaintained.

Thislastissuewillperhapsinflictsomeofthemostegregiousharmonpasturedpigand

poultryfarming.Apasturedfarmsubmittinganapplicationfor20sowsand2boarson

25ha,withplansforweeklyrotationsandfoddercropping,wouldhavetopostthesame

noticefora‘pigfarm’asanapplicationforashedof500sows.

This is deeply misleading to the community not to distinguish between these very

differentproductionmodelsinthenomenclature,aswellasinapplicationoflegislative

hurdles. This approach also creates unnecessary financial barriers to the small

businesseswhomanagethisinnovative,lowimpactmethodoflivestockfarming.

Recommendation 4: That all shed based pig farms be included in the ‘feedlot’

definitionandthatpasturedpigfarmsbeincludedinthe‘extensive’definition.

SetbacksAll new pig farms below the thresholds will not require consent (providing they are

furtherthan500mfromenvironmentallysensitiveareasandneighbouringhouses).

AFSAhavebeenincontactwithanumberoffarmerswhohavesaidtheycannotoperate

undertheseconditionsbecausetheirpropertysizeissimplytoosmall.Giventhatmany

small farms, such as 20 acre farms, are not 500m across, the setback will cause

unnecessary burden. The issue here is about the proposed policies not reflecting the

31

realities in, nor the objectives of, the rural zones. Many Environmental Planning

Instruments (EPIs) are concernedwithprotecting agricultural land from the threat of

residential or lifestyle-related subdivision and urban sprawl. For example, the

Muswellbrook Local Environmental Plan includes the objective "to protect the

agricultural potential of rural land not identified for alternative land use, and to

minimise the cost to the community of providing, extending and maintaining public

amenitiesandservices."

Small Farms Network - Capital Region collected data showing the inadequate

managementofNSWhighnumberofsmall lots.Thestatisticstheyprovidedarebased

oncadastralGISmappingdatawhichispubliclyavailable.Significantly,thedatashowed

thatlargeamountsofprivatelyownedrurallandismanagedassmalllots.Thispresents

thatthesmallfarmingsectormakesupasignificantpartoftheagriculturalindustry,a

factnottobeignored.

Whilemanymaybedismissedasnon-productivehobbyfarms,smallrurallots(1-40ha)

accountfor35%oftherurallandswithin100kmofACTand23%ofthetotalarea.Some

properties are made up of multiple lots, but nevertheless this vast area makes up

537,505hectaresintheCapitalregionalone.

DepartmentofficershavesaidtoAFSAstaff thatthe500msetback isamereproposal,

basedonnoscientificevidence,andthattheyareexpectingalternativesuggestionsfrom

thesubmissions.

Inoursurvey,AFSAfoundthat92%ofrespondents’ farmsare locatedwithin500mof

neighbouring dwellings. If they were to be starting a new farm operation on their

property, integrating pigs or poultry, they would automatically require Development

Consent. The costs of Development Consent would prohibitmany of these producers

fromfarming.Thisalsowouldputthemajorityofthesesmall-scalesystemsinthesame

landusedefinitionasshedswithmillionsofbirds.

WhileAFSAsupportstheproposalthatnoDevelopmentApplicationwillberequiredif

the farmmeets thresholdsof less than1000birdsor200pigsor20 sows,wedonot

support the proposal that where the farm is less than 500m from a neighbouring

dwellingorenvironmentallysensitivearea,consentisrequired.Smallrurallotsaccount

forvastareasof therural lands inNSWandbelow isanexampleofwhat500m looks

like.

32

ThemapprovidedshowsthatthesepropertieswouldneedtosubmitaDevelopmentApplicationiftheywanttorunapigorpoultryenterprise.

Because of the intention of the SEPPs to protect the environment, environmentally

sensitive areas will always be a trigger for Development Consent. While the need to

protect sensitive areas is supported, the list of considerations should include land

managementpracticesusedontheproperty.

ItshouldbenotedthattheindustryguidelinesforRotationalOutdoorPiggeriesdonot

recommendanysetbacksorbuffersforthistypeoffarming.

NationalEnvironmentalGuidelinesforRotationalOutdoorPiggeries(NEGROP)The National Environmental Guidelines for Rotational Outdoor Piggeries (NEGROP)

provideprospectiveandexistingoperatorsofFreeRange(FR)andOutdoorBred(OB)

systemswith informationtosize,site,designandmanagerotationaloutdoorpiggeries

inawaythatissustainableandprotectsthecommunityamenityandnaturalresources

ofanarea.

The guidelines encapsulate a national approach to environmental management for

rotational outdoor piggeries and incorporates up to date best practice and science as

33

well as complementing the industry’s quality assurance program APIQ√®FR and

APIQèOB.

It covers issues such as site selection, planning requirements, separation and buffer

distances, pig accommodation and paddock facilities, nutrient budgeting, promoting

more even distribution of manure nutrients, land and water protection measures,

mortalitiesmanagement,environmentalriskassessment,monitoringandassessmentof

sustainabilityandnutrientmanagementplans.

WhilstAFSAfundamentallydisagreeswiththepracticesofindustrialagriculture,anddo

notbelieve(despitepayinglevies)thatAPLrepresentssmallpasture-basedgrowers,the

NEGROPrecommendationsalonestate:

Table 8.1 on page 22 provides recommended buffer distances between the piggery

complexof30mfromawatercourse.

TheNationalOutdoorGuidelinesforPiggeriesrecommendedminimumfixed

separationdistancesforFreeRangeandOutdoorBredPiggeriesapplyandthese

arefromaTown750m,Ruralresidentialarea500mandRuralDwelling250m.

Further,recommendedminimumfixedseparationsdistancesforre-useareasare

Town300,Ruralresidentialarea150andRuraldwelling100.

However, they identify that it isnotnecessarytocalculatesite-specificseparation

distances for rotational outdoor piggeries because these piggeries pose a low

chanceofcausingasubstantialodourimpact,providingtheyaremanagedaccording

tosustainablenutrientloadingratecriteria.42

NutrientManagementAfurtherareaofconcernfor livestockfarming(intensivefarmingparticularly,butnot

exclusively) is nutrient management. Concentration of effluent can obviously lead to

pollution, environmental degradation, and unpleasant and offensive odours. Both

intensive and extensive pig farms can and domanage their nutritionwell, albeit very

differently,aswell-managedextensivesystemsaimnottoconcentrateeffluent.

42AustralianPorkLimited,OutdoorProduction,accessedat:http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/environment/outdoor-production/

34

The current definition does not helpfully distinguish between different systems and

theirimpacts,betheyenvironmental,socialorwelfareimpacts.

APL funded research in 2014 found that pigs in its rotational outdoor piggery study

were ‘adding some 300-600kg N/ha/yr and 100-200kg P/ha/yr […] presenting

environmentalriskstobothsurfacewaterandgroundwater.’

Using the Nutrient Balance Calculator available on the APLwebsite, wewere able to

calculatethatasystemwith12sowsand2boars–totalherdsizeofapproximately100

pigsatanygiventimeon10ha,wherepigsarerotatedanywherefromfortnightlytoup

totwomonths,adds15kgN/ha/yrand6P/ha/yr.Justoneseasonofgrowinglupinsin

theaffectedareawouldactuallydepletetheoverallavailablenitrogen,andbalancethe

phosphorousandpotassium.

AFSAfurtherusedAPL’sNutrientCalculatorandmodelledsystemsfrom1to150sows

onlandsizesfrom.5hato50ha.Shortof leavinganimals inonespotfor12monthsor

moreatatime,wecouldnotmodelasystemthatoverlynutrifiedthesoils.Aswehave

described, the farmers we represent move animals regularly (76%move more often

than weekly), and run either low density models, or high-density highly-mobile

rotationalsystems.

APLhaspromotedNEGROP,whicharebeingincreasinglyadoptedbystatesasadefacto

code of practice to replace what are considered mostly outdated piggery codes. The

NEGROP gives examples of 500- and 1000-sow operations with two-year rotations,

whereasAFSAmembers runbetween0and100-sow farms (withamedianof9), and

85%movetheiranimalsmorefrequentlythanmonthly.

Inalignmentwiththeabovestatement,AFSAhascompiledasimple‘impactassessment

form’ [See Appendix A] to ascertain whether any given farm should require

Development Consent. The information in the form clearly shows a number of

interrelated triggers to easily ascertain whether any given pig farm is low risk and

therefore an ‘exempt development’ as defined in Section 74(2) of the Environmental

PlanningandAssessmentAct1979(NSW)(theEP&AAct).Italsoproposesabasicsetof

minimum standards. AFSA asserts that the final planning reforms should incorporate

the impact assessment form as a ‘trigger’ for Development Applications, or include a

clause that directs councils to its use for pig farms that fit under the ‘Extensive

Agriculture’definition(or‘PasturedAnimalProduction’).

35

Recommendation5:ThatthetriggertojudgeapasturedpigfarmIntensive’beset

atmorethan25SPU/Ha,subjecttomeetingminimumstandards.

ProposedPoultryFarmProvisions

All poultry farms will be labelled ‘intensive.’ These may be permitted with a

DevelopmentApplication(unlesstherearechangestotheLEPs).Further,1000ormore

birds (layers or meat birds) will automatically require Development Consent.

Operationsbelowthisthresholdwillnotrequireconsent,aslongastheyarenotlocated

nearenvironmentallysensitiveareasorhouses.Industrydevelopedguidelines43remain

forseparationdistancesadriskassessmentplansarerequired.

TheGovernmentproposesthatpoultryfarmsoflessthan1000birdswillbeexempt

fromdevelopmentconsent.However,ifthefarmisnearasensitivelocationorwithin

500metresofaneighbouringresidence,theexemptionwillnotapply.

AFSAstronglydisagreeswith theproposed limitationsapplied to small- andmedium-

scalepasturedpoultryfarmsandtherationalebehindtheselimitations.Afundamental

misunderstandingoftherisksposedbysmall-andmedium-scalepoultryfarmersstems

from the underrepresentation of pastured poultry production throughout the

consultation and drafting periods, and has enabled these proposed planning reforms

thatfailtoachievetheirintentandpurpose.

Small to medium-scale pastured poultry production should be proportionately

regulated,andweproposethiswouldbemoreeffectivelycapturedbyathresholdof450

birds/Ha. This number represents the upper limit of commercially viable, low-risk,

small-scalepoultryfarms.

Conflationof‘PoultryFarms’The conflation of all poultry farms does not account for the differing systems of

production.Toeffectivelymanagetheproportionaterisk,theplanningsystemmusttake

intoconsiderationtheproductionsystemforallanimals,notjustruminants.

43NationalFarmBiosecuritymanualforChickenGrowers(2010);NationalFarmBiosecuritymanual–Poultryproduction(2009);BiosecurityofMassPoultryMortalityComposting(2014).

36

Intensive shed-based poultry production is the ‘feedlot’ of the poultry industry. The

riskstoenvironmentandamenityposedbythiskindofproductionaresignificantand

shouldberegulatedassuch.AFSAproposethatshed-basedpoultryfarmsbeincludedin

the‘feedlot’definitioninthelegislativechanges.

Consumers and producers are increasingly being concerned about the risks posed by

thesepoultryfeedlots.NSWisthelargestproducerofcagedeggsinthecountryandhas

avested interest incontinuing theuseofbatteryhens.44While theACCC isaddressing

increasingconsumerconcernsaboutegglabelling,45animalwelfaregroupscontinueto

advocateforanationallyunifiedapproachwhichfollowsinternationalexampleswhere

batteryhensarebanned.TheEuropeanUnionbannedbatterycagesystemsin2012.46

Europe,theUKandNewZealandhaveallshiftedtocage-freeeggproduction.

In contrast to intensive shed-based poultry production, low-density pastured animal

husbandry is sustainable and potentially regenerative and should therefore be a

‘Permittedwithoutconsent’useinthePrimaryandRuralProductionzones.

Inalignmentwiththeabovestatement,AFSAhascompiledasimple‘ImpactAssessment

Form’ [See Appendix B] to ascertain whether any given farm should require a

Development Application. The information in the form clearly shows a number of

interrelatedtriggerstoeasilyascertainwhetheranygivenpoultryfarmislowriskand

thereforea‘Permittedwithoutconsent’useinthePrimaryandRuralProductionzones.

Italsodescribesabasicsetofminimumstandards.

NSW has a Land Use Risk Assessment Guide (LUCRA) that provides the process for

assessingtherisksofaproposal.

It is viable that by using LUCRA, there is a way for landowners to complete the risk

assessmentandprovidethistocouncilbywayofa‘notification’(muchlikethewaythat

small scale egg and poultry farms currently provide notification to the NSW Food

Authority)thattheyarefarminglivestockorotherproduce.Thisprovidesanavenuefor

44EsterHan,WAToday,FreeRangeEggFarmsFined$300,000formisleadingshopperswithfalseclaims,15April2016,accessedat:http://www.watoday.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/free-range-egg-farms-fined-300000-for-misleading-shoppers-with-false-claims-20160415-go70cu.html45LegalVision,InaScrambleoverFreeRangeEggClaims?MisleadingAdvertisingUpdate,29April2016,accessedat:https://legalvision.com.au/28432/46AnimalsAustralia,BatterycagesbannedinEurope,27March2012,accessedat:http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/eu-bans-battery-hen-cages.php

37

self-assessmentthatcandeterminetherisklevelspresent,relievingcouncilsoftheonus

to expend resources on such assessments. Improving the utilisation of LUCRA in this

sense would provide a way for both farmers and councils to reduce the regulatory

burdenandadministrativeloadandavoidtheexcessesofDevelopmentApplications.

Thiscouldbecoupledwithorcombinedintoonedocument forself-assessmentasper

theImpactAssessmentFormprovidedbyAFSAinAppendicesAandB.

AFSA asserts that the planning document should incorporate the impact assessment

form(oraversionthereof,incorporatingtheLUCRAtests)asa‘trigger’forDevelopment

Applicationsorincludeaclausethatdirectscouncilstoitsuseforpoultryfarmsthatfit

undera‘GrazingAnimalProduction’definition(or‘PasturedAnimalProduction’).

Additional inconsistencies that stem from the conflation of all production systems

includebutarenotlimitedto:

• Geese can be 100% pasture raised with no exogenous feed input. This

quintessentially highlights the need to account for different production

methods.

• Hatcheries sit outside the controls for poultry farms despite the potential

significance of their operation (e.g. substantial industrial style construction;

increased truck traffic). The proposal appears to ignore this problem despite

theexampleofGaistvCampaspeSC[2-15]VCAT1662(16October2015).Many

small-scale farms hatch their own poultry with none of the same risks to

amenity.

SetbacksTheproposedsetbacksforsmall-scalepoultryfarmsareexcessive.Ahighly-mobile,low-

stocking density, pastured-poultry farm poses very little risk to environment and

amenityandshouldrequiresetbackscommensuratewiththisrisk.AFSArecommendsa

consistent setback of no more than 20m for pastured poultry farms of up to and

including450poultry/Ha,whereprovidedforinacode.

It is important to note that the animal production in these systems is designed to

achieve a purpose (e.g. soil aeration) corresponding to an agroecological goal (e.g.

increasedwater retention).Ahigh level ofmanagementoccurs at all times to achieve

38

these outcomes and the animal production area never remains in one location long

enoughtoevolvefrombeneficialeffecttodetrimentalrisk.

The totalvalueofpoultrymeat inperi-urbanarea is46.2%ofNSW.Poultrygrown in

theseareasincludingalltypesofpoultrygrownformeatandeggproduction.47

In our survey, AFSA found that 72% of pastured poultry farms would not meet the

setback requirements for exemption to the Development Application process, which

wouldputthemajorityof thesesmall-scalesystemsinthesamelandusedefinitionas

shedswithmillionsofbirds.Anexampleappearsbelowofwhat500m looks likeona

smallfarm:

ThemapprovidedshowsthatthesepropertieswouldneedtosubmitaDevelopmentApplicationiftheywanttorunapigorpoultryenterprise.NutrientmanagementImportingmorethan50%ofthefeedfor450chickensforaginginrotationson10haisa

verydifferentpropositiontoimporting100%ofthefeedfor10,000broilershousedina

shed.Whereasthemanureinthepasturedoperationfertilisespaddocksdirectlywithno

47SydneyPeri-UrbanNetworkofCouncils,IssuesPaper,pg.12.Accessedat:http://www.wollondilly.nsw.gov.au/assets/Documents/Planning-and-Development/SPUN/20150928-Sydney-Peri-Urban-Network-Issues-Paper.pdf

39

need for treatmentand removal, in the intensiveoperation, effluentmustbe carefully

managedtoensurenearbycatchmentsandwaterwaysarenotpolluted.

In our survey, AFSA found that 84%of pastured poultry farms aremobile,with over

90%movingbirdsandinfrastructureweekly,ormorefrequently.

Inoursurvey,AFSAfoundthatpasturedpoultryfarmersrangefrom1to1500birdsper

hectarewithanaverageof136birds/Ha.

After some basic analysis, AFSA has concluded that a stocking density based on the

highest sustainable carrying capacity for a low-risk mid-scale pastured poultry farm

with the least favourable soil conditions and climate, can be applied as the lowest

commondenominator.Thisstockingdensity(eg.450poultry/Hawhereprovidedforin

acode) isamoreeffectiveevidence-basedthreshold forpoultry farmsthatshouldnot

requireaDevelopmentApplicationinthePrimaryandRuralProductionZones.

Recommendation6:Thatallshedbasedpoultryfarmsbeincludedinthe‘feedlot’

definition and that pastured poultry farms be included in the ‘extensive’

definition.

Recommendation7:That the trigger to judgeapasturedpoultry farm ‘intensive

livestock agriculture’ be set at more than 450 birds/Ha, subject to meeting

minimumstandards.

Recommendation 8: That all pastured livestock are defined under ‘extensive

agriculture’,butthatthetermbechangedto‘PasturedAnimalProduction’.

Recommendation 9: Thatwhere feeding infrastructure ismobile that a setback

fromneighbouringdwellings48,waterwaysorenvironmentallysensitiveareasbe

setatnomorethan20m.

48(thatisnotassociatedwiththefarmingoperation)

40

IntensivePlantAgriculture

OneidentifiedissuewithintheNSWplanningsystemisthelostopportunitytoimprove

theregulationofhorticulture.Amainconcernofourmembersistheintensiveirrigation

requirementundertheStandardInstrumentLEP,whichprescribesregulationofall

IntensivePlantAgriculture.Thedefinitionof‘IntensivePlantAgriculture’includesanyof

thefollowingcarriedoutforcommercialpurposes:• cultivationofirrigatedcrops(otherthanpastureorfoddercrops),

• horticulture,

• turffarming,

• viticulture

Horticulturemeansthecultivationoffruits,vegetables,mushrooms,nuts,cutflowersand

foliageandnurseryproductsforcommercialpurposes,butdoesnotincluderetailsalesor

viticulture.

Thescaleoftheproposaland/oritslocationinrelationtoasensitivesitewilldetermine

whetheralicenseisrequiredunderSchedule1oftheProtectionoftheEnvironment

OperationsAct1997oriftheproposalcomprises‘DesignatedDevelopment’.

TheGovernmenthasnotrespondedmoreeffectivelytotheconcernsofmanyinrelation

to intensive plant agriculture.49For example, there is an emphasis around irrigated

crops being considered intensive. Market gardeners must irrigate their crops to be

viable.Thiscurrentlyputseveryproducerofvegetablesforsale,largeorsmall,intothe

categoryofintensiveagriculture.Horticulturalactivityforthepurposesoftheplanning

regulationsshouldconsidertheproductionofanyvegetablecropsandthemethodsby

whichthosecropsaregrown.

Recommendation10:To formulatea separatedefinition forsmall-acre (1-40ha)

plantagriculturewhichdoesnotrequiredevelopmentconsent,butratherfulland

comprehensivenotificationtotherelevantconsentauthority.

49TheFAQsaspartofthekeyreformdocumentsstate:Changesinintensiveplantagricultureoperationshaveraisedcommunityconcernsinsomelocations.Commonissuesrelateto:visualamenityandimpactsofcropnetting;spray-drift;vegetationremoval,waterextractionanddamconstruction;andnoise.Manyofthesemattersareregulatedbyarangeofexistinglegislativerequirements,suchastheuseofpesticidesandapprovalsfortheextractionofwater.

41

RegulatoryProcessIssues

TheEIEstatesthatthereformswillsupporttheoverallplanningsystemobjectiveby

makingitaseasyaspossibleforlocalcommunitiesandindustrytolocateandbeaware

oftheplanningprovisionsthatapplyintheirlocalareas.50Aspartofthis,theNSW

DepartmentofPlanningandEnvironmentshouldhaveraisedawarenessaboutthedraft

forpubliccommentaswasdoneintheVictorianPlanningreformprocess.Forexample,

nopublicconsultationswereimmediatelyofferedtomembersofthepublic.Information

sessionswereonlyplannedforCouncils.Byrequest,individualswhofoundoutabout

thereformscouldapplyforaconsultation;however,manywereinformed.

Lack of consultation with the community and of representation from small-scale

growers have exacerbated the trend towards overregulation and red tape. ‘Land use

planning and regulation is foundational to any food system. It can prohibit some

activitiesand incentiviseothers,andgenerallyshapeacommunity’srelationshipto its

land.’51TheneedsofNSWcommunitiesareconstantlydiversifyingandregulatorsneeds

tounderstandandworkwithcommunitiesandcouncilstogetbroadagreementbefore

implementingchanges.Theproposedregulationsarenotentirelycompatiblewithgood

regulatory practice, which should achieve policy objectives at the least cost to the

community.

Through landuse planning, a government should guide development in the rural and

peri-urbanzonesinpursuitofcommongoalsandvalues,suchnutritiousandcleanfood

products,environmentalprotectionandsustainableliveablecommunitieswithasense

ofplace.

Regulatory expression in the reforms will act as a core framework of the operating

systemtocome.Theexpressionmustgiveasenseofclarityandcomprehensiveness,as

they are the initial steps in the broader process of regulatory application. The

Governmentshouldfosteramoreholisticviewofregulatorydesignwhereanintegrated

planningmodelisusedintheprocessofdeterminingwhatregulatoryinterventionsare

needed based on evidence gathered. Rather than codifying perceived scales of

agriculture, theregulationscouldfacilitatecustomisedexemptionsfromtheneedfora

50Pg.7,ExplanationofIntendedEffect.51GoodLaws,GoodFood:PuttingLocalFoodPolicytoWorkforOurCommunities.Accessedat:https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FINAL-LOCAL-TOOLKIT2.pdf

42

Development Applicationwhere development is acceptable and does not trigger land

use conflict. The LUCRA tests and proposed impact assessments could be used by

farmerstoensureacceptablelevelsofrisk.

TheGovernment should carefullymonitor andevaluate the inconsistencieswithin the

definitionsinthecurrentproposal.SubordinatelegislationtotheoverarchingStandard

Instrument LEPwill follow suit, and the Government needs to take responsibility for

ensuring that changes are made based on evidence and locally-relevant community

needs. The reforms need to be assessed against potential interpretation differences

presentedbytherelevantFoodSafetyActorRegulationsandotherregulations.

Greatertransparencyfundamentallygaugescommunityresponsestoideasbeforethey

are fully formed. If the current proposal is implemented, future courses of action are

anticipatedbetweensmall-scalefarmersandresponsibleauthorities.Thisconsequence

maybeduetothelowrepresentationofsmall-scalefarmersintheengagementprocess.

Instead, councils were given information sessions hosted by the staff of the NSW

Governmentdepartment.

The drafters do have or ought to have the discretion to gather evidence from any

stakeholders.Inthisprocess,theymustincludeanimalindustryproducers(bothsmall

andlarge-scaleoperations).Thiswillmeanthatthepolicywillrepresentaspectrumof

interestswithintheindustryandamongconsumers.Thelackofconsultationmayhave

attributedtothesubsequentplanning,design,construction,operationandmanagement

requirementsoffree-rangeanimalproductionsystems,whichhavebeencodifiedonan

erroneous basis that they are all intensive. Continued input from a representative of

AFSA would make a valuable contribution to the reform drafting process and will

improvetherepresentationofsmall-scaleNSWpasturedpigandpoultryproducers.

ThiscreatesconcernthattheGovernmenthasnotactedtransparentlyandpracticallyin

developing this proposal. The uninterrupted exceptions to cattle feedlots and piggery

sheds are seen as further examples of particular primary industry groups seeking to

removecontrolsonintensiveusesinruralzones.Ultimateoutputsfromtheregulatory

planning system are changes to the real world. The terms then must reflect real

agricultural practices to avoid complex, costly anduncertain tribunal procedures.The

bypassing of proper consultation depreciates the role and legitimacy of planning and

43

germinates regulatory issues that will clog the courts without clear regulatory

expressionfortheirinterpretation.

The Government should consider graduated categories of various livestock systems,

whichwilldictatetheconsentrequirementsineachzone.Thiswillreflectarisk-based

approach and remove the need for some small-scale farms to obtain a Development

Application in certain zones. The definitions proposed do not accurately reflect the

levels of risk of industry-specific land uses. Managing different scales of farming

practicesaccordingtotheproposedsectionswillreinforcetheissuesthathavenotbeen

addressedbythedraftreforms.WeencouragetheGovernmenttoacknowledgethatthe

proposal has fallen short of its objectives and that it should subsequently reassess

whereDevelopmentApplicationtriggersmightberemoved.

86% of respondents to the AFSA Pastured Livestock Survey reported that they have

decreased confidence in the NSW Government’s ability to regulate animal industries

sincethedraftreformwasreleased.

ResourcesforCouncilstoAdministerIncreasedRegulatoryBurdenand

RegulatoryImpactStatement

Ithasbeenacknowledged inotherstates,suchasVictoria, that fewplannershaveany

real experience and understanding of intensive animal operations. Responsible

authorities requireguidance toadminister theplanningsystemand theMinistermust

approveoftheirconduct.

However,thelackofeducationincludedinregardstoanimalindustriesraisesconcerns

forhowwellthisgovernmentactionisscoped.

The information provided about the development approval process should be openly

sourcedsothatemphasisonlargeindustrysuccessispartofandnotthemainaspectof

the support. Technical support for investors from animal industry specialists already

have flow on effects that inform local government decisions, and these are not all

suitable to for all animal operations. Without proper consultation and research, the

reformscouldserveonlyarepeatof‘one-size-fitsall’regulationforanimalindustries.

44

A regulatory impact statement shouldbeprepared to require regulators to assess the

likely impact of their decision on all stakeholders, including community, developers,

farmingbusinessesandindividuals.Suchastatementwouldtreattheimpactsaseither

regulatoryimpactsorcompliancecosts.52

Ideally, a regulatory impact statement would align industry structure with the

regulatoryoutcomesneededforeachtypeofanimalproductionidentified,andyettobe

identified, by the Government. Further communication with not only intensive and

export-focusedindustriesbutalsowithcommunitiesandsmallbusinesseswillallowthe

Government to identify the right programs and resources to educate farmers and

regionalcouncilsaboutplanningcompliance.

Recommendation11:DevelopCodesofPracticeincloseconsultationwithsmall-

scalepasturedpigandpoultry farmers. (SeedraftCodeofPractice forPastured

PigProductioninAppendixCforwhatsuchcodesmightinclude.)

Recommendation12:Thataregulatoryimpactstatementbepreparedurgently.

52PreliminaryAssessmentFormGuidanceNote,OfficeofBestPracticeandRegulation.

45

APPENDIXA:ImpactAssessmentForm–PigFarmsThis form is to be used to identifywhether a pastured pig farmmeets theminimumstandardforlow-riskpasturedanimalproduction.I.e.ExtensiveAgriculture.The formis intendedforuse intheRU1-PrimaryProduction,RU2-RuralLandscape,RU4-PrimaryProductionSmallLotsZones.Ifallanswersare‘Extensive’,theuseis‘ExtensiveAgriculture’.Ifanyanswersare‘Intensive’,theuseis‘IntensiveLivestockAgriculture’.1. Whichofthefollowingbestdescribesyourfarm?

a) PasturedAnimalProduction-Landusedforanimalproductionwheretheanimalsobtainfoodbydirectlygrazing,browsingorforagingplantsgrowingontheland.Itincludesemergency,seasonalandsupplementaryfeeding.[Extensive]

b) IntensiveAnimalProduction-Landusedforanimalproductionwhere:• alloftheanimals’foodisimportedfromoutsidetheimmediatebuilding,

enclosure,paddockorpen;and• theanimalsdonotobtainfoodbydirectlygrazing,browsingorforaging

plantsgrowingonthelandonadailybasis.[Intensive]ForQ2:StockingratereferstothenumberofSPU/Haandisappliedtotheentireanimalproductionareaoverayear.E.g.If100SPUarecontainedina5Hapaddockandrotatedtoanew5Hapaddockeverymonthfor6months,thetotalanimalproductionareais30Ha.Therefore,thestockingrateis100SPU/30Ha=3.3SPU/Ha(assumingnopaddockwasusedmorethanonce).2.Isthestockingrate53:

a) lessthan25SPU/Ha[Extensive]b) 25-35SPU[Intensive]c) 35SPU/Haormore[Intensive]

3.Isthehousing/shelterandfeedinfrastructuremobile/impermanent?

a) Yes[Extensive]b) No[Intensive]

4.Howoftenwillanimalsandmobilefacilitiesberelocated54?

Breedingherds:a) <6months[Extensive]b) >6months[Intensive]

53Maxdensityforanimalwelfare(HumaneChoice)is25/ha.APL’snutrientloadcalculatorshowsapprox108/44/39KgofN/P/Kover6monthswhichequalsapproxzeronetgain/year.54RotationalOutdoorPiggeriesandtheEnvironment2015(APL)recommends:“Toeffectivelydispersenutrients,movablefacilitiesmustberelocatedatleasteverysixmonthsforbreedingherds,andeverythreemonthsforgrowerpaddockstocoverthepaddockoverthelengthofthepigphase”

46

c) NA

Growingherds:a) <3months[Extensive]b) >3months[Intensive]c) NA

5.Whatistheminimumpasturecoverageatanyonetimeforthetotalanimalproductionarea?

a) 60-100%[Extensive]b) 40-60%[Intensive]c) 0-40%[Intensive]d) N/A-animalsarepermanentlyhoused[Intensive]

6.Willanimalsormobilefacilitiesbelessthan20mfrom:

• Anaturalwatercourse;or• Anenvironmentallysensitivearea

forlongerthan3monthscontinuous?

a) No[Extensive]b) Yes[Intensive]

7.Willrestperiodsforareasdefinedabovebe:

a) >1month[Extensive]b) <1month[Intensive]

47

APPENDIXB:ImpactAssessmentForm–PoultryFarmsThisformistobeusedtoidentifywhetherapasturedpoultryfarmmeetstheminimumstandardforlow-riskpasturedanimalproductioni.e.ExtensiveAgriculture.The form is intended for use in the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape,RU4PrimaryProductionSmallLotsZonesIfallanswersare‘Extensive’,theuseis‘ExtensiveAgriculture’.Ifanyanswersare‘Intensive’,theuseis‘IntensiveLivestockAgriculture’.1. Whichofthefollowingbestdescribesyourfarm?

a) PasturedAnimalProduction-Landusedforanimalproductionwheretheanimalsobtainfoodbydirectlygrazing,browsingorforagingplantsgrowingontheland.Itincludesemergency,seasonalandsupplementaryfeeding.[Extensive]

b) IntensiveAnimalProduction-Landusedforanimalproductionwhere:• alloftheanimals’foodisimportedfromoutsidetheimmediatebuilding,

enclosure,paddockorpen;and• theanimalsdonotobtainfoodbydirectlygrazing,browsingorforaging

plantsgrowingonthelandonadailybasis.[Intensive]ForQ2:Stockingratereferstothenumberofbirds/Haandisappliedtotheentireanimalproductionareaoverayear.E.g.Iftheaveragenumberofbirdsstockedoveroneyearis1800andthetotalrangeareausedis4Hathestockingrateis1800/4.Therefore,thestockingrateis450/Ha.2.Isthestockingrate55:

a) lessthan450/Ha[Extensive]b) 451-600/Ha[Intensive]c) morethan600[Intensive]

3.Isthehousingandfeedinginfrastructuremobile/impermanent?

a) Yes[Extensive]b) No[Intensive]

4.Howoftenwillanimalsandmobilefacilitiesberelocated?

a) <1month[Extensive]b) >1month[Intensive]

5.Whatistheminimumpasturecoverageatanyonetimefortheanimalproductionarea?

a) 71-100%[Extensive]b) 51-70%[Intensive]

55450broilers/Ha=approx.225KgN/Ha/Yrwhichisapprox.equaltozeronetgainNperyear.HumaneChoicerecommendsdensitiesof600-4800asthemaximumforanimalwelfareforvariouskindsofpoultry.

48

c) 0-50%[Intensive]d) N/A-animalsarepermanentlyhoused[Intensive]

6.Willanimalsormobilefacilitiesbelessthan20mfrom:

• Anaturalwatercourse;or• Anenvironmentallysensitivearea

forlongerthan1monthcontinuous?

a) No[Extensive]b) Yes[Intensive]

7.Willrestperiodsforareasdefinedabovebe:

a) >1month[Extensive]b) <1month[Intensive]

49

APPENDIXC:CodeofPracticeforPasturedPigFarms[NB:Thefollowingdraftisnotexhaustive,butsimplyahigh-levelexampleofacodeof

practice for pastured animal production, not dissimilar to the Cattle Feedlot Code of

Practice. A parallel document with similar principles could easily be developed for

pasturedpoultryfarms.]

ForewordTheAustralianpastured-pigfarmingsectorevolvedinresponsetoanewunderstanding

of centralised food systems and their effect on environmental sustainability,

socioeconomic equality, health and quality of life. Conventional pork production is

losing its social licence and the pastured pork industry serves the resulting market

demandforethically-raisedpork.

The industry recognises that it has a social and ethical obligation to customers,

communities and government to continually deliver improvements to environmental,

animalwelfareandfoodsafetypracticesifitwishestomaintaintheconfidenceofthese

markets.

TheCodeofPracticeisintendedtoprovidenationallyconsistentguidelinesunderstate

regulation forpasturedpig farmers regarding theenvironmentally relevant aspectsof

theestablishmentandoperationofpasturedpigfarms.Theseguidelinesencouragenot

onlysustainabilitybutregenerationofenvironmentsthroughagroecologicalpractice.

In recent years scientific knowledge and community expectations in relation tomeat

production have changed. The Australian pastured-pig industry exemplifies a cultural

shift back to extensive, ecologically-sound production of ethical pork driven by a

scientific understanding of the risks of intensive industrial pork production to public

health,localeconomies,foodsovereigntyandcommunityresilience.

TheindustryexpectsallpasturedpigfarmstoadheretotheCodeofPracticealongwith

allotherrelevantenvironmental,animalwelfareandfoodsafetylegislation.

PrefaceThe Australian pastured-pig farming community considers that the protection and

regeneration of the environment is essential for an ecologically- and economically-

sustainableagriculturalindustry.Tothisend,theindustryhasbeenproactiveinseeking

50

to develop and adopt appropriate codes of practice for the management of risks to

environmentandamenity.

Apparent inconsistencies and differences between the various state and national

publicationshavebeenaconcerntotheindustry.Thesedifferencesoftensimplyreflect

differences in what was accepted as best practice at the time of drafting the various

documents.Accordingly,anyinconsistenciesbetweenthisCodeofPracticeandexisting

statecodes,guidelinesandreferencemanualsarenottobeconsideredasacriticismof

theseotherpublications.ItisalsointendedthatthisCodeofPracticebeusedasabasis

foranystateguidelinesdevelopedinthefuture,therebycreatingregulatoryconsistency

betweenthestates.

A secondary aim of publishing the new Code of Practice was to reach a consensus

betweenregulatoryauthoritiesinthevariousstatessothatsimilarconditionsapplyto

pastured pig farms throughout Australia. This aim for consensus was made while

mindful of the different physical environments and the different legislative and

regulatoryframeworksthatmayapplyineachstate.

LegislativeContextThisCodeofPracticeisintendedtocomplimentratherthanoverrideorreplacefederal,

stateor localgovernment legislation, regulation,plansorpolicies. It is impliedby this

CodeofPracticethatthoseplanningtooperateapasturedpigfarmwillcomplywithall

relevantregulatoryrequirements.

AuditRequirementsAll pastured pig farms can be audited by local councils at their discretion using the

Impact Assessment Form. The Impact Assessment Form ensures that the minimum

standardsarebeingmet.

Definitions

PasturedpigfarmLandusedforpigproductionwhere:

a.thepigsobtainfoodbydirectlygrazing,browsingorforagingplantsgrowing

onthelandinadditiontosupplementaryfeeding;

b.no less than60%of the total animalproductionarea is coveredbypasture;

and

c. housing and feeding infrastructure is mobile/impermanent, except in

emergencysituations.

51

StandardPigUnitsAustralian Pork Limited have defined Standard Pig Units (SPU’s) as shown in the

followingtable.

TypeofPig SPUEquivalent

Gilt 1.8

Boar 1.6

GestatingSow 1.6

LactatingSow 2.5

Suckers 0.1

Weaner 0.5

Growers 1

Finishers 1.6

StockingRateStockingrate isdefinedasSPUperhectareovertime. It iscalculatedonthetotalarea

usedforanimalproductionoverthecourseofayear.

E.g.If100SPU’sarecontainedina5Hapaddockandrotatedtoanew5Hapaddockeverymonthfor6months,thetotalanimalproductionareais30Ha.Thereforethestockingrateis100SPU/30Ha=3.3SPU/Ha(assumingnopaddockwasusedmorethanonce).

DescriptionofpasturedpigfarmactivitiesPastured-pigfarmsarelowdensity,highwelfare,highmanagementfarmsthatstrivefor

environmental regeneration. Potential risks to environment and amenity (e.g. dust,

odour,runoff,over-nutrification)aremitigated,ifnotcompletelynullified,bystocking

at low densities and maintaining pasture cover to a minimum standard at all times.

Pastured-pigfarmsincreasebiodiversityandlandscapefunctionbyrotatingtheirstock

regularly.Typicallyhousingandfeedinginfrastructureishighlymobile.Animalwelfare

ismaintainedatthehighestlevelbybreedingandraisingallpigsoutside(withaccessto

mobilehousing/shelter/shade)andprovidingunrestrictedaccesstopasture.

52

While adherence to a commonsetofminimumstandards allows for easygovernance,

pastured-pig farms are often at the forefront of sustainable agriculture. Thus, specific

agroecologicalpracticesandregenerationstrategiesmayvarygreatlybetweenfarms.

EnvironmentPastured pig farms must address the environmentally relevant aspects of the site,

productionmodelandcontinuedoperation.

Thatis,pastured-pigfarmsshouldbesitedandmanagedsothey:

• prevent adverse impacts on surface waters external to the farm and improve soil

moistureretention;

•preventadverseimpactsonandimprovethequalityofgroundwater;

•preventadverseimpactsonandimprovethequalityoftheamenityofthesurrounding

community;

• preventadverseimpactsonandincreasethebiodiversityandresilienceofnativeflora

andfaunaandecologicalcommunities;

• ensuretheimprovementoflandscapefunctionovertime;

• ensuretheoperationofthepasturedpigfarmproducesanetgaininavailablenatural

resources;

• utilisenutrientscontainedinanimalwasteandwasteproducts.

Buffers of 20m from waterways and environmentally sensitive areas should be

maintained, except in the case of specific regeneration outcomes (e.g. weed

management).

Pastured-pigfarmsshouldconsidertheeffectsofdifferentfeedinputsonpotentialrisk

toenvironment.

Pasturedpigfarmsshouldhaveacomprehensiveunderstandingofthesoilqualityand

soilhealthoflandusedforanimalproductionandsurroundingareas.

53

APPENDIXD:SurveyDataA Pastured Livestock Farming Survey was created by AFSA and distributed through

socialmedia,newslettersandthroughpartnerorganisationsandindividuals.Themain

purposeof thesurveywas togatherdataonpastured livestock farmers regarding the

sizeoftheirfarms,thespeciesfarmed,pasturecover,andstockingrates.

Thesurveycollected100responses fromlivestock farmers inallstatesandterritories

exceptNTandACT.46.88%(N=45)ofrespondentswerefromVictoria,29.17%(N=28)

fromNSW,12.50%(N=12)fromQueensland,5.21%(N=5)fromTAS,4.17%(N=4)and

2.08(N=2)fromWesternAustralia.

Thedataanalysedherewascollected fromthe1stNovember2017 to the14th January

2018.

Farmersinthesurveyuseanaverageof177hectaresforanimalproduction,butthere

wassignificantvariationinsizeoffarmingareaswiththesmallestareabeing0.25and

thelargest3238hectares.Themedianlandsizewas41Ha.

65.522%oftherespondentsfarminaregenerative/agroecologicalsystem,27.59%inan

organicorbiodynamic,3.45%inconventionaland3.45%answered“other”.

The majority of respondents (75.86%)) do not think the scale of their farm is

represented in the planning laws in their states and territories. Only 10.34% of

respondentsthinktheirscaleoffarmingisrepresented.

81%ofNSWrespondentsdonotthinkthescaleoftheirfarmisrepresentedintheNSW

Proposed Planning Provisions with others unsure. There were no NSW respondents

whothinktheirscaleoffarmingisrepresented.

Q8-14Zoningoffarmbystate

NSW–81.81%inRU1,0.05%inRU2and1.36%inOther

Q15Productionsystemforeachspecies

Inpoultryproductionsystems,thevastmajorityoffarmerssurveyed(94.74%)reported

usingapasturebasedsystemwithfeeding(e.g.processedfeeds,grain,hay,etc).5.26%

54

havepoultry in shedbased systemswith free range access.One respondent said they

haveapasturebasedsystemwithoutsupplementalfeeding.

In pig production systems, 96.55% of respondents said they used a pasture based

systemwithsupplementalfeeding(e.g.processedfeeds,grain,hay,etc).

In cattle production, 78.12%use pasture based systemwithout supplemental feeding

(grass-fed only), 21.78% use pasture based system with supplemental feeding (e.g.

processedfeeds,grainhay,etc).

In sheepproduction, 89.47%usepasturebased systemwithout supplemental feeding

(grass-fedonly).10.05%saidtheyoperatedapasturebasedsystemwithsupplemental

feeding(e.g.processedfeeds,grainhay,etc).

57.14% of farmers producing goats do so in a pasture based system without

supplementalfeeding(grass-fedonly).42.86%offarmerskeeptheirgoatsinapasture

basedsystemwithsupplementalfeeding(e.g.processedfeeds,grainhay,etc).

Othersalsoreportedonfarmingrabbits,alpacas,horsesandgeeseinbothpasturebased

systemwithandwithoutsupplementaryfeeding.

Q16Regularrotationoflivestock.

Thevastmajorityofrespondentsreportedthattheiranimalsaremanagedinamobile

systemwithregularpaddockrotations.

Poultry-83.86%

Pigs-97.05%

Cattle-100%

Sheep-100%

Goats-100%

Q18Ifsystemismobile,aremovesbasedontimeorpasturecover?

Respondentswere askedwhether they rotate their animals based on time or pasture

cover.

55

Ofrespondentswhorotatebasedontime,78%movetheiranimaltonewgrounddaily

oratleastweekly.Only8%ofrespondentsrotatetheiranimalslessoftenthanmonthly.

Ofrespondentswhorotatebasedonpasturecover,70%willmovetheiranimalsbefore

pasturecoverdropsbelow50%.Onerespondentallowsanimalstostayinonepaddock

untilthereisbaresoil.

Q19PercentofrespondentsgrowingparticularspeciesacrossAustralia.

Poultry58.62%

Pigs100%

Cattle72.41%

Sheep51.72%

Goats17.24%

Q20 Average number of animals per hectare (not based on DSE/SPU etc. May

fluctuateoverseasons)

Poultry–rangesfrom1-1500withanaverageof57.

Pigs–rangesfrom1to21withanaverageof7.

Cattle–rangesfrom1to120withanaverageof4.

Sheep-rangesfrom1to200withanaverageof4.

Goats-rangesfrom1to30withanaverageof1.

Q23Distanceofproductionareafromdwellingorenvironmentallysensitivearea.

0-30m–12.19%

31-50m–9.76%

51-100m–29.27%

101-500m21.95%

>500m26.82%

Q26DoyoucurrentlyholdaDevelopmentApplicationforpoultryfarming?

83% of respondents who farm poultry in NSW do not currently hold a Development

Application.

Q23Distancesfromneighbouringdwellingsandwaterways.

78%ofpoultry farmerrespondents inNSWcannotmeetthesetbackrequirements for

theproposedDevelopmentApplicationexemption.

56

39%ofpig farmerrespondents inNSWcannotmeet thesetbackrequirements for the

proposedDevelopmentApplicationexemption.

Q27IsNEGROPappropriateforyourfarm?

Only6%ofrespondentsbelieveNEGROPisappropriatefortheirfarmingsystem.

Q28Howmanysowsdoyouhave?

0-3–39%

4-8–19%

9-20–32%

20-50–6%

50-100–3%

Q29Howmanyboarsdoyouhave?

0-1–55%

2-5–39%

5-10–6%

Q33 Since the draft planning reforms were released, has confidence in state

Governmentdeclined?

86% of respondents have decreased confidence in the NSW Government’s ability to

regulateanimalindustriessincethedraftreformwasreleased.

57

APPENDIXE:DevelopmentApplicationCostsExample

FarmEnterpriseCaseStudiesPasturedPorkProducer–GoulburnMulwareeShireCouncil

Zone

·FarmzoningisRU1

GeneralInformation

·FarmArea-160ha

·ProductionArea-25ha

·Geology–Bushland,nativepastureandrockyoutcrops

·AverageRainfallperannum-675mm/annum

·SurfaceSoilTextures–Sandyloam/clay

·ProductionAreaSlopes–2-8°

Proximity

·DwellinginSeparateOwnership–500m

·ResidentialZoneorUrbanGrowthZone–15km

WaterSupply

·Source(s)–Dams

·Irrigation–Nil

·Reticulation–Pipe

Team

·FullTime-2people

·Casual-0person

·YearsinOperation-3years

·TotalProduction/year-500pigs

·NumberProcessed/week–5-10units

58

·TotalotherHerd–n/a

·TotalpigFeed-60tonnes/year

Financials

·Annualturnover–approx.$150,000

·AbattoirFees–$18,500

·FeedCosts–$27,000

·Wages-N/a

·DevelopmentApplicationcosts(sofar$12,000yettobecompleted)

·Submissiontocouncil–Yettobefullyprocessedwillbeapprox.$650

·Timetoprepare–labourestimatecosts-Applicationhasbeenongoingfor3years

·Externalconsultants(specifytypeandcost)

·Environmentalecologistexternalconsultant:$1,500

·Environmentalengineer/ecologistexternalconsultant:$3,000

·Workstobeperformed(specifytypeandcost)

YettobeagreedwithSydneywatercatchmentmaybeintheregionof$50,000-$100,000.Someworkswillincludebundsanddrainagemanagement,additionalfending,extensiveplanting,runoffbarriersandwetlandsconstruction.

59

Tamworthgrowerpigsonpasture

Litterwithsowonpasture

60

Outdoorfarrowinghutwithpiglets