China 2015 – State Council Water Ten Plan – environmental closure of pig farms in ban-zones
Government Policy
In Effect
April 1, 2015
Summary
In April 2015, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China issued the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Water Ten Plan), which required local governments to designate livestock and poultry farming ban-zones and restricted zones along rivers, lakes, urban fringes, and protected water-source areas, and to close or relocate all existing farms within these zones by the end of 2017 (by end of 2016 in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Pearl River Delta, and Yangtze River Delta). The primary instrument for this record is the 2015 Water Ten Plan; the 2014 Regulations on Prevention and Control of Pollution by Scaled Livestock and Poultry Breeding Industry are a precondition instrument establishing the regulatory framework within which the Water Ten Plan operated. In response, provincial and prefectural governments across China — particularly in Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Hunan — designated non-livestock production regions (NLPRs) and issued closure or relocation orders to existing pig farms within those zones. By mid-2017, the Ministry of Environmental Protection reported that approximately 213,000 livestock farms had been closed or relocated nationwide under the water pollution and environmental zoning policies. The closure and relocation mandates accelerated structural concentration in the pig sector toward larger, more capital-intensive producers, and redistributed pig production from water-sensitive southern and eastern provinces to less-dense northern and interior regions.
Background Context
Before the Water Ten Plan, China had introduced a framework for controlling livestock-sector environmental pollution through the 2014 Regulations on Prevention and Control of Pollution by Scaled Livestock and Poultry Breeding Industry, which authorised environmental authorities to regulate livestock operations through zoning, siting, and pollution-control measures. Enforcement of earlier regulations remained fragmented and regionally uneven. High-profile pollution events — including dead pigs floating in Shanghai waterways in 2013, traced to densely clustered small-scale pig farms in Zhejiang — intensified political pressure to clamp down on farms in water-network-dense southern provinces. The State Council’s broader “war on pollution” agenda, including tighter air and water-quality targets, provided the political context for the Water Ten Plan’s livestock-zoning provisions. Zhejiang Province targeted approximately 70,000 pig farms for closure; Fujian targeted approximately 13,000 in late 2015.
System Impact
Direction
Reduces Exploitation
Type
Changes Scale
Significance
Moderate
Following the Water Ten Plan’s issuance in April 2015, provincial and county governments across China designated non-livestock production regions along rivers, lakes, and protected water sources, and issued closure or relocation orders to existing farms within these zones. Zhejiang Province, one of the most intensively affected, targeted approximately 70,000 pig farms. By mid-2017, the Ministry of Environmental Protection reported that approximately 213,000 livestock farms had been closed or relocated nationally, with the majority being small-scale and backyard pig farms. The closure mandates disproportionately affected small-scale operators; large, capital-intensive producers were better positioned to comply through relocation or facility upgrades. Structural concentration in the pig sector accelerated, with the share of pigs produced by backyard farms declining from approximately 57% in 2015 to below 52% by 2017. Pig production geographically redistributed from water-sensitive southern and eastern provinces toward northern and interior regions with greater spatial capacity. The 2015–2017 closure and relocation window was declared completed by end of 2017; subsequent policy focused on maintaining compliance and preventing new production within ban-zones. After the 2018–2019 African swine fever outbreak, government policy shifted toward promoting large-scale industrial pig farming as part of a production-restoration strategy, which rebuilt national pig numbers under different spatial and ownership structures. Later policy adjustments eased environmental approval requirements for small-scale pig farms, indicating some recalibration of the earlier closure-driven approach while the underlying zoning architecture remains operative.
Anticipated Effects
If the zoning framework continues to be enforced as designed, pig farming in water-sensitive ban-zones would remain prohibited, preventing return of pig production to ecologically sensitive river, lake, and urban fringe areas.
If enforcement continues to favour large-scale, standardised facilities while restricting small-scale operations, the structural concentration of pig production in China would be expected to deepen over time, altering the mix of housing systems and waste-management practices across the sector.
If later policy recalibrations — including reduced environmental approval requirements for small-scale farms — are applied broadly, the spatial zoning logic of the Water Ten Plan may become more selectively enforced, with uncertain effects on the distribution and total volume of pig farming in formerly restricted areas.
Significance Rationale
Assigned Reduces Exploitation (impact direction) because the Water Ten Plan directly mandated closure or relocation of pig farms in designated ban-zones, with approximately 213,000 livestock farms closed or relocated by mid-2017. Within the ban-zones, the number of pig farms and animals contracted sharply and documentably. The policy also produced geographic redistribution: pig production shifted from water-sensitive southern and eastern provinces to northern and interior regions, meaning the national-level pig sector was restructured rather than eliminated. The scale change within the ban-zones is documented and direct; the net effect at national level is a redistribution, with national pig numbers subsequently recovering through industrialisation and ASF-period rebuilding.
Assigned Changes Scale (impact type) because the primary mechanism of the Water Ten Plan’s livestock provisions is the direct closure mandate: orders requiring farms to close or relocate, directly reducing farm counts and animal holdings in designated areas. Restructures Supply Chains is a documented secondary consequence — the geographic shift from south to north and interior altered the spatial structure of China’s pig supply chain — but the closure mandate is the operative direct mechanism.
Assigned Moderate significance because approximately 213,000 farms were closed or relocated across China’s most intensively farmed provinces, representing a major structural intervention in the regional pig sector. National pig numbers recovered through geographic redistribution and industrialisation, meaning the system-level effect is structural reconfiguration rather than net contraction. Relative to China’s national pig sector — the world’s largest — the policy materially restructured spatial and ownership patterns without eliminating or permanently contracting national production.
The scale change is transitional: pig-farming in designated ban-zones contracted sharply between 2015 and 2017, production was partially rebuilt in other regions and under larger-scale operators, and the geographic map of intensive pig farming in China remains reconfigured relative to the pre-2015 baseline.
Key Actors
The State Council issued the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution in April 2015. The former Ministry of Environmental Protection (now Ministry of Ecology and Environment, MEE) developed and enforced pollution-control regulations and monitored livestock operations. The Ministry of Agriculture (now MARA) co-drafted the 2014 Regulations and coordinated agricultural-sector implementation. Provincial governments in Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Hunan, and other provinces designated ban-zones and oversaw closure and relocation. Local environmental protection bureaus issued individual closure and relocation notices and monitored compliance. Large pork producers including COFCO Meat and provincial state-owned agribusinesses adjusted siting and investment plans; smaller backyard farms were the primary targets of closure orders. The National Swine Industry Association documented industry impacts.
Editorial Correction Notice
Development date: Set to April 2015 — the date of the State Council Water Ten Plan, the primary instrument. The exact day within April 2015 is not specified in sources consulted; the month is confirmed. The 2014 Regulations on Prevention and Control of Pollution by Scaled Livestock and Poultry Breeding Industry are the precondition regulatory framework, not the development date instrument.
Scale & Prevalence: The figure of approximately 213,000 farms closed or relocated by mid-2017 comes from Ministry of Environmental Protection reporting as cited in secondary sources. Individual pig headcount reductions are estimated from industry-sourced sector-share data (e.g., backyard farm share declining from ~57% to ~52% of national production) rather than a direct official animal count; these figures should be treated as approximate. Zhejiang (~70,000 farms) and Fujian (~13,000 farms) provincial targets are documented in secondary trade and academic sources.
Impact direction — relocation versus elimination: A documented portion of the farms affected by the Water Ten Plan were relocated rather than permanently closed. For farms that relocated production to other regions, the policy restructured spatial distribution rather than eliminating exploitation. For farms that permanently closed without relocation, the policy reduced exploitation within its geographic scope. The record assigns Reduces Exploitation because the direct mandate reduced farm counts and animal holdings in designated areas; the broader geographic redistribution is documented in the significance_rationale and trajectory sentence.
System areas: Housing & Confinement, Breeding & Reproduction, Transport, Slaughter & Processing, and Trade are not assigned. These are downstream consequences of the farm closures and geographic redistribution rather than system areas where the Water Ten Plan directly acts. Market & Supply Chains is assigned because the policy’s explicit geographic zoning mechanism directly restructures where pig production can legally occur — the supply chain reconfiguration is a direct consequence of the ban-zone designation, not a secondary ripple effect.
Affected practices: Depopulation is assigned as the practice directly produced by the closure mandates — farms ordered to close within defined periods would have depopulated their animal holdings. Housing & Confinement and Live Transport are not assigned as they represent downstream consequences of the geographic redistribution pattern rather than practices directly regulated by the Water Ten Plan’s livestock provisions.
Related records: The China 2018 ASF outbreak and the China 2021 ASF second wave are separate Development records documenting subsequent disease-driven contractions of the Chinese pig sector. The post-ASF production rebuild under industrial farming policy is noted in system_impact_description as context but is not part of this record’s scope.
Notice an inaccuracy or omission?
If you believe information on this page is incorrect, incomplete, or missing important context, you may submit a suggested correction for review.