Building Social Capital - An Alternative Approach to Addressing Odour Issues - with a Specific Focus on Intensive Farming Operations Hamish Smith – Resource Officer WRC (BSc (Tech) - Earth Science, PGDip - Env Pln)

Overview Introduction Example – Chicken Broiler Farms Case Study 1 – Roto-o-rangi Piggery Case Study 2 – Te Aroha Poultry Farm Case Study 3 – Putaruru Poultry Farm Reflection Summary Questions

Introduction Social Capital – the expected collective or social/economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation between individuals and groups. (Putnam, R. 2000)

Odours Potential to adversely affect people’s lives Cause of stress for all those involved Monitoring/responding to complaints of chronic type odours can result in a cost burden to rate-payer and consent holder Unpredictable and sometimes a significant burden on council resourcing

Example – Intensive Indoor Broiler Farming Operations Growth industry - 47 consented in the Waikato Region Discharges of odour and dust are untreated Adequate buffer distances most effective Scale varies - common technology used

Intensive Indoor Broiler Farms Consent Applications Location and scale dealt with through consent process Often poor neighbour relationship management evident in submissions Potentially affected parties identified using guideline distances Unpredictable where written approvals will/will not be given Most applications non-notified

Intensive Indoor Broiler Farms Complaints 111 complaints (10 years) from 13 (28%) of sites Increasing over time – 60% of total in past 3 years Irregular (no significant correlation with season/time of year) Likelihood of complaints not a product of adequate buffer distances – tend to follow changes in ownership

Why no complaints from the majority of farms? Odour effects are being offset

Implementation of Offset Strategy - Case Studies

Case Study 1 – Roto-o-rangi Piggery Been on the site for ~50 years, re-built in 2007 to include a covered anaerobic pond (with flare) Has received 65 complaints in the previous 10 years, 40 between 2007 and 2012 Since 2007, 34 (85%) of those complaints came from one complainant ~$4000 in complaint monitoring costs between 2011 & 2012

Objectionable odour events confirmed – advised that enforcement action may follow Meeting held in 2012, odour mitigation options discussed Few technology options available to reduce odour Consent holder initially hesitant to pursue offset option Complainant was willing to discuss issue with site Case Study 1 – Roto-o-rangi Piggery

Over 2 years, 3 legs of ham, no complaints. No further enforcement action Council resources are free for other uses Site has saved on council monitoring costs and potential enforcement costs Neighbour has noted improvements in the odour from the site (although no identified changes in operation) Case Study 1 – Roto-o-rangi Piggery

Case Study 2 – Te Aroha Poultry Farm >30 years on property (unchanged in scale) The site changed ownership in 2011 The site had no recorded complaints until 2011, 8 since 1 complainant ~120m from sheds Odour assessed as objectionable following complaint response process

Site is highly automated Complainant stating odour is now worse than prior owner Perception of the source of the odour influencing effect that the odour has on this person Case Study 2 – Te Aroha Poultry Farm

WRC and Industry got together to discuss options Neighbourly relations now toxic and irreparable Industry and WRC pressure contributed to a change in ownership in early 2013 Industry implemented training programme for farm operators in dealing with complaints and building social capital – conducted with WRC input No complaints received since new owners started and neighbour had noted an improvement in odour Case Study 2 – Te Aroha Poultry Farm

Case Study 3 – Putaruru Poultry Farm Operation has been on the site for ~20 years The site changed ownership in 2005 The site had no recorded complaints until early 2008, since then 40 in total All complainants to south of site +500m from sheds Site reaction was initially confrontational to first complaints Relationship with neighbours is now beyond repair – mediation has been unsuccessful

operation highly automated and appears well run. Few options available to mitigate effects Complainants all stating odour is now worse Perception of the source of the odour contributing to ongoing sensitisation of receptor Case Study 3 – Putaruru Poultry Farm

Not yet resolved – complaints increasing in frequency Further enforcement action a real possibility Site consent expires in 2016, lengthy and expensive process likely Significant source of stress (and cost) for site and affected parties; and Significant hindrance to effective planning of resources for council Case Study 3 – Putaruru Poultry Farm

Reflection – Social Capital Offset Where it works best: Where the site acknowledges that there is an odour problem; Where there are limited technology options available; Where industry groups are involved – provides leverage with operators and training to new and existing operators; Where all parties are still able to engage in open dialog.

Reflection Cont... Where it has not worked: Where a site is reluctant to agree there is a problem with odour; Where it appears forced (perception of neighbours); When the site is unwilling to use such a strategy; When neighbourly relations have become toxic.

Summary Offsetting odour effects is not restricted to physical or monetary means Building ‘Social Capital’ is a cost effective means of dealing with chronic odour sources where ‘win-wins’ can be achieved. Appears to be the norm rather than the exception and typically happens with little or no council involvement. First step in the response tool belt

Questions?