Same swine, different day - Part 2

Resolving conflict and protecting the environment in hog farm communities

Kyle Lamothe, Staff
Illustrations by Galen Johnson & Jessica Koroscil

For a lot of people in Manitoba, the mention of hogs brings up negative visions of environmental pollution, rural social problems and controversy in general. In part one of this series, the Manitoban looked into how the province’s hog industry addresses animal welfare concerns in the wake of intense public scrutiny and media coverage. In this issue, we turn the spotlight onto the industry’s environmental and community responsibilities.

Competing interests

According to the Manitoba government, between 1992 and 2001, the value of hog exports from the province grew almost exponentially from $37.5 million to $518.8 million while the slaughter capacity more than doubled. In 2005, the industry is on the verge of becoming a billion-dollar market within the province, making up a large portion of the agricultural economy.

With this growth comes outcries from environmental groups, animal welfare groups and the community at large. One major concern centres on water: huge hog barns need vast amounts of water to maintain the animals and move manure in liquid-based production systems, which can strain local watersheds. The manure can contaminate the local watershed and underground aquifers, damaging the water supply of neighbours and entire communities. Research by academics such as Eva Pips of the University of Winnipeg has shown that contaminants such as nitrates, phosphates and pharmaceuticals can make their way into drinking water, even in cities.

Other problems include the smell and damage to cropland from the very high levels of nutrients in hog manure (called fertilizer-burn). In economic terms, some affected people have had difficulty believing that the hog operations benefit rural communities, citing studies that have found that land value decreases around barns while a select few collect the generated wealth. The jobs created are often insufficient to keep young people from migrating to the city.

As for social relations in some communities, well, they can get downright nasty. All too often, the environmental and economic concerns become interpersonal, contaminating the relationships between current or potential operators of hog barns, and those in municipalities who are or would be affected by them.

Emotional runoff

“With the expansion in the mid-’90s came a lot of controversy at the local level,” recalled Peter Mah, director of Community Relations and Sustainable Development at the Manitoba Pork Council. “People were concerned about the industry and the impact on communities and the environment. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the opposition was getting the complete message or all the information, as there was a lot of fear-mongering . . . . It was a very rough time for everyone involved.”

In 2001 and 2002 in the municipality of Piney, Manitoba, the contentious hog issue erupted in public council meetings and on the streets, nearly paralyzing governance.

When a local farmer applied to the municipality for permission to build a 1400-hog operation on his property, the community became divided. The farmer told CBC News at the time that he had received death threats, as had some counsellors, forcing three of the five elected officials to resign, fearing for their lives.

This was not an isolated incident, and stakeholders within the industry began to fear that growing conflict at the community level could impede the growth of the industry itself. For an industry so dependent on external markets, trouble on the home front is big.

Sharing in circles

As local community meetings in Piney became increasingly factious, industry representatives, as well as stakeholders from different levels of government, formed a committee with the goal of fostering discussion. The committee launched several pilot projects and, ultimately, refined a process.

“We hired a mediation lawyer to design a process over the course of a year. Then, as a pilot, we tested the process in five case studies,” said Mah. “In each study, the process was refined and was found to lower the angst of the local people, provide factual information and create really good dialogue between neighbours and the livestock farmer in a meeting sanctioned by the local government.”

The process was brought to Greg Barrett, the program co-ordinator at Mediation Services, a non-profit community-based organization. In addition to community facilitation (the agency mediated the Wolseley-City of Winnipeg “Mosquito Wars” a couple of years ago), the organization provides training seminars in peace-building and conflict resolution.

Mediation Services will be facilitating the process, named Livestock Facilitation Community Consultation (LFCC) which will be publicly launched on September 28.

“The fact that this LFCC process exists shows that we have to have an understanding between two important realities: one, that people are going to build hog barns and operations and, two, that there’s an impact on the community as a result,” said Barrett.

With $200,000 in funding from the livestock industry and the federal and provincial governments to ensure that the program runs for at least two years, LFCC shows promise of solving a lot of problems.

The process itself begins when a farmer announces that he or she intends to build a hog barn on his or her property. The farmer drafts a detailed proposal and meets with municipal officials, who then contact Mediation Services. The municipality notifies the farmer’s immediate neighbours and the general community that a LFCC meeting will be held. Technical advisors and possibly a counsellor or the reeve from the municipality may also be involved. Mediation Services then sends two mediators to the meeting to greet the people and seat them in two concentric circles, with the immediate neighbours in the inner circle, and the rest outside.

“You want to make it clear who is most directly involved here,” explained Barrett.

After everyone is introduced, the farmer presents his or her plan and explains the intended construction schedule, location, scale and other pertinent factors about the hog operation. Those in the inner circle are first invited to voice their concerns for the proposal, whether regarding smell, carcass removal or other issues. Mediation Services records these points, the producer or technical advisors responds to them, and the remaining community members in the outer circle then have the opportunity to add their concerns.

After everyone feels that their concerns have been accurately recorded, the mediators write a meeting report for the municipality to look over and distribute.

“We don’t make any recommendations; our job is to ensure that in the community you can have a discussion in a way that doesn’t include violence, and in a way where everyone is heard and everyone is clear that they’ve been heard and understood,” said Barrett.

He hopes that introducing the LFCC process into disagreements over livestock operations early on will help to maintain the communities that may have otherwise fallen apart.

“There has to be a way where you and I as individual citizens can talk about our disagreements as citizens, and that’s what we’re trying to do here. We may not necessarily agree at the end of the process, or send Christmas cards to each other, but we’re not stabbing each others’ tires and we will talk to each other in the street or coffee shop,” Barrett said.

“We may not necessarily agree at the end of the process, or send Christmas cards to each other, but we’re not stabbing each others’ tires and we will talk to each other in the street or coffee shop.”

Growing sustainable

An important aspect of change is the acceptance that there have been problems in the past, but also a realization that these can be rectified in the future. According to Mah from the Manitoba Pork Council, the sector had an epiphany a few years ago when the business climate changed. The U.S. began accusing Canada of dumping hogs into their market in 2002, while the interest and exchange rates put a damper on Manitoba’s swine industry. This heavy reliance on exports made producers look further inward at ways of bringing and keeping more value within the province.

“I think that the industry has gone through a period of restructuring . . . and maturing, and I think that people in the society will appreciate that,” said Mah. “There isn’t going to be the kind of expansion that we saw in the mid-’90s again. So we’re looking at different production models, whether they be straw-based models or smaller production units that enable a family and producer to diversify an existing, say, grain operation as a way to keep their sons and daughters on the farm.”

As discussed in part one of this series, the hog industry has contributed substantial funds ($5.4 million since 1999) to research at facilities like the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatchewan and the University of Manitoba, and through the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative (MLMMI).

The MLMMI is a group of government and industry stakeholders that receives funding from industry to distribute and facilitate research into sustainability in livestock production. Although the research transfers to many different livestock sectors, the Manitoba Pork Council is the only group that contributes significantly, according to Mah.

There is also heavy use of the phrase “sustainable development” within industry circles these days. To Mah, this means focusing on the social, environmental and economic effects, yet keeping the three in balance of priority. Andrew Dickson, general manager of the Pork Council, noted that this is because they are all interconnected.

“See, you can’t be environmentally sustainable if you are not economically sustainable — the healthier the industry is, the more money there is available to invest in environmental projects,” he said.

“The pork industry is doing its very best, as are the producers, to make sure that we do whatever is right. It will take time to make some adjustments, but we are continuing to strive for it, and I don’t think that we can be faulted for being slow at all. We’re moving faster than a lot of other industries, but we are under a tremendous amount of public scrutiny and have invested heavily in the future of the industry, and we want to do it right.”

If you’re troubled because you missed part one of “Same swine, different day, dry those tears.” You can visit the newly redesigned http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban and find it in the Toban Archives (August 24, 2005 edition) — relief is but a few clicks away.





Volume 93 • Issue 4	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	September 7, 2005

Home About Us Advertise Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Personals Volunteer	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly Same swine, different day - Part 2 Resolving conflict and protecting the environment in hog farm communities Kyle Lamothe, Staff Illustrations by Galen Johnson & Jessica Koroscil For a lot of people in Manitoba, the mention of hogs brings up negative visions of environmental pollution, rural social problems and controversy in general. In part one of this series, the Manitoban looked into how the province’s hog industry addresses animal welfare concerns in the wake of intense public scrutiny and media coverage. In this issue, we turn the spotlight onto the industry’s environmental and community responsibilities. Competing interests According to the Manitoba government, between 1992 and 2001, the value of hog exports from the province grew almost exponentially from $37.5 million to $518.8 million while the slaughter capacity more than doubled. In 2005, the industry is on the verge of becoming a billion-dollar market within the province, making up a large portion of the agricultural economy. With this growth comes outcries from environmental groups, animal welfare groups and the community at large. One major concern centres on water: huge hog barns need vast amounts of water to maintain the animals and move manure in liquid-based production systems, which can strain local watersheds. The manure can contaminate the local watershed and underground aquifers, damaging the water supply of neighbours and entire communities. Research by academics such as Eva Pips of the University of Winnipeg has shown that contaminants such as nitrates, phosphates and pharmaceuticals can make their way into drinking water, even in cities. Other problems include the smell and damage to cropland from the very high levels of nutrients in hog manure (called fertilizer-burn). In economic terms, some affected people have had difficulty believing that the hog operations benefit rural communities, citing studies that have found that land value decreases around barns while a select few collect the generated wealth. The jobs created are often insufficient to keep young people from migrating to the city. As for social relations in some communities, well, they can get downright nasty. All too often, the environmental and economic concerns become interpersonal, contaminating the relationships between current or potential operators of hog barns, and those in municipalities who are or would be affected by them. Emotional runoff “With the expansion in the mid-’90s came a lot of controversy at the local level,” recalled Peter Mah, director of Community Relations and Sustainable Development at the Manitoba Pork Council. “People were concerned about the industry and the impact on communities and the environment. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the opposition was getting the complete message or all the information, as there was a lot of fear-mongering . . . . It was a very rough time for everyone involved.” In 2001 and 2002 in the municipality of Piney, Manitoba, the contentious hog issue erupted in public council meetings and on the streets, nearly paralyzing governance. When a local farmer applied to the municipality for permission to build a 1400-hog operation on his property, the community became divided. The farmer told CBC News at the time that he had received death threats, as had some counsellors, forcing three of the five elected officials to resign, fearing for their lives. This was not an isolated incident, and stakeholders within the industry began to fear that growing conflict at the community level could impede the growth of the industry itself. For an industry so dependent on external markets, trouble on the home front is big. Sharing in circles As local community meetings in Piney became increasingly factious, industry representatives, as well as stakeholders from different levels of government, formed a committee with the goal of fostering discussion. The committee launched several pilot projects and, ultimately, refined a process. “We hired a mediation lawyer to design a process over the course of a year. Then, as a pilot, we tested the process in five case studies,” said Mah. “In each study, the process was refined and was found to lower the angst of the local people, provide factual information and create really good dialogue between neighbours and the livestock farmer in a meeting sanctioned by the local government.” The process was brought to Greg Barrett, the program co-ordinator at Mediation Services, a non-profit community-based organization. In addition to community facilitation (the agency mediated the Wolseley-City of Winnipeg “Mosquito Wars” a couple of years ago), the organization provides training seminars in peace-building and conflict resolution. Mediation Services will be facilitating the process, named Livestock Facilitation Community Consultation (LFCC) which will be publicly launched on September 28. “The fact that this LFCC process exists shows that we have to have an understanding between two important realities: one, that people are going to build hog barns and operations and, two, that there’s an impact on the community as a result,” said Barrett. With $200,000 in funding from the livestock industry and the federal and provincial governments to ensure that the program runs for at least two years, LFCC shows promise of solving a lot of problems. The process itself begins when a farmer announces that he or she intends to build a hog barn on his or her property. The farmer drafts a detailed proposal and meets with municipal officials, who then contact Mediation Services. The municipality notifies the farmer’s immediate neighbours and the general community that a LFCC meeting will be held. Technical advisors and possibly a counsellor or the reeve from the municipality may also be involved. Mediation Services then sends two mediators to the meeting to greet the people and seat them in two concentric circles, with the immediate neighbours in the inner circle, and the rest outside. “You want to make it clear who is most directly involved here,” explained Barrett. After everyone is introduced, the farmer presents his or her plan and explains the intended construction schedule, location, scale and other pertinent factors about the hog operation. Those in the inner circle are first invited to voice their concerns for the proposal, whether regarding smell, carcass removal or other issues. Mediation Services records these points, the producer or technical advisors responds to them, and the remaining community members in the outer circle then have the opportunity to add their concerns. After everyone feels that their concerns have been accurately recorded, the mediators write a meeting report for the municipality to look over and distribute. “We don’t make any recommendations; our job is to ensure that in the community you can have a discussion in a way that doesn’t include violence, and in a way where everyone is heard and everyone is clear that they’ve been heard and understood,” said Barrett. He hopes that introducing the LFCC process into disagreements over livestock operations early on will help to maintain the communities that may have otherwise fallen apart. “There has to be a way where you and I as individual citizens can talk about our disagreements as citizens, and that’s what we’re trying to do here. We may not necessarily agree at the end of the process, or send Christmas cards to each other, but we’re not stabbing each others’ tires and we will talk to each other in the street or coffee shop,” Barrett said. “We may not necessarily agree at the end of the process, or send Christmas cards to each other, but we’re not stabbing each others’ tires and we will talk to each other in the street or coffee shop.” Growing sustainable An important aspect of change is the acceptance that there have been problems in the past, but also a realization that these can be rectified in the future. According to Mah from the Manitoba Pork Council, the sector had an epiphany a few years ago when the business climate changed. The U.S. began accusing Canada of dumping hogs into their market in 2002, while the interest and exchange rates put a damper on Manitoba’s swine industry. This heavy reliance on exports made producers look further inward at ways of bringing and keeping more value within the province. “I think that the industry has gone through a period of restructuring . . . and maturing, and I think that people in the society will appreciate that,” said Mah. “There isn’t going to be the kind of expansion that we saw in the mid-’90s again. So we’re looking at different production models, whether they be straw-based models or smaller production units that enable a family and producer to diversify an existing, say, grain operation as a way to keep their sons and daughters on the farm.” As discussed in part one of this series, the hog industry has contributed substantial funds ($5.4 million since 1999) to research at facilities like the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatchewan and the University of Manitoba, and through the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative (MLMMI). The MLMMI is a group of government and industry stakeholders that receives funding from industry to distribute and facilitate research into sustainability in livestock production. Although the research transfers to many different livestock sectors, the Manitoba Pork Council is the only group that contributes significantly, according to Mah. There is also heavy use of the phrase “sustainable development” within industry circles these days. To Mah, this means focusing on the social, environmental and economic effects, yet keeping the three in balance of priority. Andrew Dickson, general manager of the Pork Council, noted that this is because they are all interconnected. “See, you can’t be environmentally sustainable if you are not economically sustainable — the healthier the industry is, the more money there is available to invest in environmental projects,” he said. “The pork industry is doing its very best, as are the producers, to make sure that we do whatever is right. It will take time to make some adjustments, but we are continuing to strive for it, and I don’t think that we can be faulted for being slow at all. We’re moving faster than a lot of other industries, but we are under a tremendous amount of public scrutiny and have invested heavily in the future of the industry, and we want to do it right.” If you’re troubled because you missed part one of “Same swine, different day, dry those tears.” You can visit the newly redesigned http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban and find it in the Toban Archives (August 24, 2005 edition) — relief is but a few clicks away.


Terms of Use \| Member of the CUP \| RSS Newsfeeds © Copyright 2006 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation