Summary of Submissions
Building Resilience: A review of the on-farm adverse events recovery framework
This document summarises 72 written submissions and the feedback from 14 consultation meetings held around the country on the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s (MAF) publicly released discussion document Building Resilience: A review of the on-farm adverse events recovery framework.
Executive summary
Recovery measures for small-scale and medium-scale events
The written submissions showed a lack of clarity about what the specific recovery measures were for small-scale1 and medium-scale2 events. Generally though, both the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures were found to be well liked and successful in aiding recovery. In particular, the help provided by both Task Force Green and Enhanced Task Force Green was well-received.
Rural Support Trusts
The concept of Rural Support Trusts or similar entities was well supported. Most submitters felt Rural Support Trusts could play a larger role in recovery if supported by government. Overall, the questions regarding Rural Support Trusts were well responded to in written submissions (65 percent), compared with other questions asked in the discussion document.
Agricultural Recovery Programme (ARP) - used in 2004 floods
Many submitters considered this was a well received programme that sped recovery and boosted community morale. Submitters indicated that the most successful aspects of this programme were the reconstruction of infrastructure and the re-grassing and re-cropping assistance.
There was strong concern, however, by a minority of submitters that the ARP was inequitable to the smaller landowner and removed any incentive to put in place sustainable land management practices by rewarding those who had not invested in building their farm’s resilience to adverse events, while providing nothing to those minimally affected due to their risk mitigating actions. A few submitters felt the cash injection created loose spending and thoughtless repair and its implementation had done nothing to build resilience in the community.
Government role in business assistance and principles around business assistance
Supporters of the government providing business assistance following an adverse event outnumbered those in opposition with respect to the following details:
- There was general support for an excess, although many favoured a straight 10 percent of damage rather than the proposed “$10,000 or 10 percent (whichever was greater)”, so as not to discriminate against smaller farms. Alternatively, a lower threshold of $5,000 was mooted.
- Agreement was reached regarding the targeting of business assistance to commercial farms only by those who felt government should be involved.
- There was disagreement around capped assistance. Some felt capped assistance was fair, while others felt that if the criteria were met it would be hard to argue capped assistance as equitable.
- The discussion document did not explicitly seek comment on the government’s percentage contribution to recovery costs however; there was one comment in support of 75 percent replacement value compared with two who felt 50 percent replacement value was more than sufficient.
Uninsurable on-farm infrastructure
The following were mentioned by some submitters as items that should be included in the list for government assistance3:
- re-grassing except for erosion prone land;
- re-cropping;
- internal fencing for welfare issues with stock -, keeping bulls away from heifers etc;
- stock losses from drowning;
- sheep and cattle yards;
- airstrips;
- silt removal;
- structures and vine rehabilitation;
- shelter belt restoration;
- orchard access; and
- rates relief.
Some forestry submitters expressed disappointment that forestry recovery was not included, particularly due to the vulnerability of forests in the first six years of growth and the fact that tree wind throw is largely uninsurable.
An insurance company noted tracks, drainage, silt damage to pasture, and earth dams as things that are essentially "land" and are not covered by a fire and general insurance policy. In regard to crop insurance, companies offer no cover (a few have fire cover) due to their high risk profile and therefore, crop replacement should be included in the list that the government will provide aid for.
Other submitters commented that if the risk is able to be insured against and is not, then there should be no government contribution.
Special assistance options
Providing only the recovery measures for small-scale and medium-scale events even in a large-scale event was supported by nine percent of written submissions.
The compulsory insurance option was strongly dismissed by 88 percent of written submissions responding to the insurance question and by the majority of meeting attendees. Of the three special assistance options suggested in the discussion document, submitters favoured the direct business assistance option (option C). Of the submitters who favoured business assistance:
- 44 percent supported the reimbursed cash grant;
- 25 percent favoured the targeted cash grant;
- 17 percent favoured the general concessional loan; and
- 6 percent favoured the general cash grant.
The remaining eight percent of written submissions favoured a continuation of the Agricultural Recovery Programme (ARP) or a hybrid of the above options.
Most consultation meetings drew a mixed response regarding the preferred special assistance option but overall the reimbursed cash grant was the most favoured.
Criteria
There was an almost even split in support and opposition for the criteria/ matrix approach by written submitters. Often the general idea of the matrix was supported, however, some issues of note were:
- a desire for greater support within the small-scale event classification for those localised events when a few farmers are severely affected;
- a suggestion that “multi-district” events be included in the large scale event classification;
- issues and questions around how the criteria are interpreted within the matrix (e.g. how do you determine the availability of risk management measures?); and
- suggestions of more definable, trigger-able criteria and greater information provided within the proposed matrix to aid in its interpretation by public and local authorities.
Those opposing the criteria generally felt that events should be judged on a case by case basis, or that the criteria for classification of events were too dependent on geographic scale rather than individual impact.
Response phase
Although the discussion document was mainly focused on on-farm adverse events recovery, many submitters commented on aspects of the response phase. The biggest issue raised by submitters was response by authorities and implementation of recovery measures. There were also issues around who to contact when help is needed and what help is available. Comments regarding Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) also arose as part of the response concerns, particularly at consultation meetings. The application and performance of a civil defence response in rural areas was questioned on several occasions. An example was the case of moving livestock, where speed is integral. A more integrated response was suggested by both landowners and CDEM representatives.
Key submitters
Figure One shows the percentage breakdown of the written submitters’ interest groups. Note: “Other” are those submitters who did not fit the categories listed and included groups such as insurance companies and accountancy firms.
Figure One: Breakdown of written submissions received by each interest group
Agricultural industry groups and individual farmers who had experienced weather related adverse events made up half of the written submissions. Other significant contributions came from Federated Farmers groups, councils and Rural Support Trusts.
One hundred and seventy-four people attended 14 meetings held around the country. Attendees included representatives from regional and district councils, Federated Farmers, Rural Support Trusts, CDEM representatives, landowners, farmers, National Farm Forestry Association, Rural Women New Zealand, forestry consultants, an insurance company, dairy company representatives, and AgFirst farm consultants.
Recovery measures for small-scale and medium-scale events
The written submissions showed that there is a lack of clarity about the recovery measures for small-scale4 and medium-scale5 events. A few commented on not knowing that these measures were available before viewing the discussion document. Many submitters commented about the lack of information available regarding these recovery measures. In general, however, this review found these measures (Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 listed in the discussion document) to be well received and highly valued.
Task Force Green/Enhanced Task Force Green
Most submitters who answered these questions (63 percent of respondents) commented on the benefits of Task Force Green (TFG) but identified the need for experienced co-ordinators to maximise its benefits (TFG workers need constant supervision). Some sought a faster response in implementing this initiative. Other suggestions regarding TFG included greater flexibility through the ability to hire people from outside the TFG pool in order to get workers with the right skills. There was also a suggestion farmers should be able to use that funding pool to pay their own employees. The ability to access machinery in addition to labour, particularly in the early phase of recovery was noted by some submitters, as well as the need for extended timeframes for TFG use. Several submitters considered that the wages of TFG workers need to be revised to reflect the conditions of work. The availability of unemployed people for TFG was also mentioned as an issue in some areas. Meeting attendees expressed difficulties in finding skilled, trustworthy and willing workers in some regions. There was a suggestion that utilising skilled seasonal labour in their off season would be a way to address this issue.
Response phase
Although this review was mainly focused on recovery, many submitters commented on aspects of the response phase. In practice there are critical linkages between the recovery and response phases. Some suggestions provided were:
- increase publicity - publish the recovery measures, the process, and assistance available so that people know what to do, who to contact, and what is available;prefer local input - using local response teams or emergency relief teams would aid in communication and the ability to ascertain the degree of impact and prioritise where help is most needed;
- have a well known response team in each district;
- improve communication - need one-stop shop for greater co-ordination amongst departments, and between departments, councils, and CDEM;
- ensure direct communication, to show someone cares;
- increase central government involvement, as smaller councils can be too stretched;
- speed up civil defence emergency response for animal welfare and access;
- speed up approval of funds for helicopter hire to ascertain damage;
- appoint agricultural recovery facilitators promptly;
- manage media carefully – especially with respect to animal welfare issues; and
- recognise the critical need for essential infrastructure repair e.g. telecommunication, and road access.
Other measures
Submitters acknowledged the benefits of Agricultural Recovery Facilitators and grants to Rural Support Trusts. Also valued were the flexible tax provisions and welfare assistance and psycho-social support, although a few comments were made regarding the terminology of counselling and welfare.
There were suggestions for education on risk mitigation, encouragement of retirement of marginal land and information on how to get help in an adverse event. Communication between the civil defence system, councils and MAF was also raised.
Modifications of recovery measures for small and medium scale events
Suggested modifications of these measures were to combine the measures for small-scale and medium-scale events so the few badly affected farmers in a small event can access more assistance.
Other issues, from one or two submitters, that were considered to aid recovery included:
- the need for police surveillance immediately after an event;
- the need to recognise the different impacts on pastoral, horticulture and forestry operations;
- the need to make welfare assistance less bureaucratic;
- the need to make application forms for assistance simpler and standardised;
- the need to extend the taxation deadline relief to GST deadlines; and
- the need for more local damage assessors with standardised guidelines.
Rural Support Trusts
The Rural Support Trusts (RST) questions were well responded to by submitters, with 65 percent of all written submitters commenting on RSTs. RSTs were particularly valued in their role of providing counselling and emotional support. The knowledge within RSTs of local people, regions and organisations was highly valued in aiding recovery. Some submitters were unaware of the services offered by RSTs, but the majority of submitters supported the “concept” of rural support and the use of local people in coordinating both response and recovery efforts.
Some submitters saw more of a role for RSTs in the coordination of response and recovery, while other submitters felt RSTs have been successful in providing advocacy, counselling and emotional support and should remain in that role only. Overall, there was a general view that RSTs could have a larger role in aiding response and recovery and should be further supported by central government. Specific, additional roles mentioned by submitters that RSTs could be involved with were:
- working on community preparedness through education, disseminating information, and selling disaster handling kits; and
- working in the early response phase by working with agricultural facilitators, and assisting in a co-ordination role.
- The importance and challenge of keeping RSTs operative at a low level between events was also stressed.
Government interaction/involvement with RSTs
Some submitters felt RSTs should remain independent of the government, while others in regions with more active trusts suggested further involvement by government was necessary. Government was seen to have a role in funding and helping to build up the trusts. Suggestions included:
- clarifying the roles of RSTs and emergency trusts, and building capacity;
- providing RSTs with some powers to act on behalf of the government;
- extending the network of RSTs;
- MAF developing and encouraging greater networking amongst the RSTs and holding bi-annual seminars to maintain an active network of RSTs in all rural areas;
- MAF maintaining a database of all RSTs;
- providing greater recognition, resourcing, training and funding to RSTs (including for travel and set-up, a suggestion of 50 percent government funding).
One submitter considered that the RST role could be undertaken by MAF and another submitter felt other organisations should also be recognised for this type of counselling work by government.
Agricultural Recovery Programme (ARP)
Many submitters considered this was a well received programme that sped recovery and boosted community morale. Much support was given for the continuation of this programme. Submitters indicated that the most successful aspects of this programme were the reconstruction of infrastructure and the re-grassing and re-cropping assistance.
Some submitters considered that the excess of $10,000 was unfair in not recognising the disproportionate impact on small farms. The speed of delivery was also raised as an issue, as was the guideline that work had to be undertaken by a paid contractor. One comment was made that internal fencing should have been included in the package.
There was strong concern by a minority of submitters that the ARP was inequitable to the smaller landowner and removed any incentive to put in place sustainable land management practices. These submitters felt the ARP rewarded those who had not invested in building their farm’s resilience to adverse events, and provided nothing to those who were minimally affected due to the risk mitigating actions they had put in place (at their own cost) pre-event. There was also comment about the programme being inequitable to urban business, as no similar assistance exists for urban business. Some submitters considered that there was too much emphasis on repairs rather than risk mitigation (with particular concern over funding erosion prone land). There were a smaller number of submitters who felt that the cash injection by government created loose spending and thoughtless repair, and that its implementation had done nothing to build resilience in the community.
Government role in business assistance
The majority of submitters felt government does have a role to play in on-farm business assistance, and considered there is significant benefit to the community and the tax payer in aiding recovery following a major adverse event. However, a significant number of submitters considered that any financial aid should be spent on providing incentives for good land management practice (e.g. discouraging farming on slip-prone and marginal land). They felt investments by government should require proof of risk mitigation (e.g. insurance, farm plans, sustainable land management). Some considered that aid should only be given in extreme cases, as small events should be viewed as part of farming.
There was mention of inequities arising from government business assistance between responsible farmers who had spent farm profits on sustainable land management practices and received nothing from government, and those that reaped the rewards of risky farming to later be bailed out by government. Those submitters were strong advocates for pre-adverse event measures. Others felt government should remain hands-off and concentrate on basic infrastructure restoration, e.g. roading. One commented that commercial banks are happy to assist farmers who are genuinely in hardship from an adverse event, so government involvement is unnecessary. There was also mention by individual submitters that government assistance could be viewed as a subsidy, that it could distort land prices, and that some farm owners would be indirectly subsidising others through taxes.
Principles of business assistance
The conditions of proposed business assistance were an excess of $10,000 or 10 percent, whichever was greater, and that any assistance should be capped at $250,000 and targeted at commercial business. Supporters of government providing business assistance (72 percent) following an adverse event outnumbered opposition (28 percent) by written submitters. The following were given as reasons for opposing business assistance by government:
- it is inequitable between urban and rural businesses;
- it is inequitable between those with and those without adequate risk mitigation measures;
- it could over time distort individual decision making and land use and land prices; and
- government has a role and responsibility with respect to health and safety of people and reinstatement of public infrastructure not business assistance.
There was generally agreement that an excess was suitable although, many favoured a straight 10 percent of damage rather than the proposed “$10,000 or 10 percent, whichever was greater” proposal so not to discriminate against smaller farms. Alternatively a lower threshold of $5,000 was also mooted. Agreement was reached regarding the targeting of business assistance to commercial farms by those who felt government should be involved. There was disagreement around capped assistance however, as some felt capped assistance was fair (50 percent), while others (33 percent) felt that if the criteria were meet it would be hard to argue capped assistance as equitable. The remaining 17 percent neither supported nor opposed. There was only one comment in support of 75 percent replacement value compared with two who felt 50 percent was more than sufficient.
The following were made as suggestions for the principles of business assistance by some submitters:
- link assistance to sustainable land management practices;
- government funding should be focused on long-term infrastructure changes to mitigate future adverse events;
- instead fund research, development and education on risk mitigation practices;
- encourage marginal land retirement;
- encourage risk mitigation measures;
- assistance to be based on preparedness of the landowner;
- assistance only for rare and unpredictable events;
- provide clear guidelines as to what is available and publicise it;
- emphasis should be on the impact of an event rather than scale;
- droughts should be treated differently or else help will arrive too late;
- facilitators should also be available for smaller scale events; and
- encourage insurance uptake and dissemination of insurance information as to what is available.
Consultation meeting participants felt targeting community good and general infrastructure was seen as fairer than business assistance. Urban and rural issues were raised as to the inequity of on-farm business assistance. For example, damage to support service businesses by adverse events was not recognised by proposed document.
Uninsurable on-farm infrastructure
The following were mentioned by some submitters as items that should be included in the list for government assistance:
- re-grassing except for erosion prone land;
- re-cropping;
- internal fencing for welfare issues with stock - keeping bulls away from heifers, etc;
- stock losses from drowning;
- sheep and cattle yards;
- airstrips;
- silt removal;
- structures and vine rehabilitation;
- shelter belt restoration;
- orchard access; and
- rates relief.
Some forestry submitters expressed disappointment that forestry recovery was not included, particularly due to the vulnerability of forests in the first six years of growth and that tree wind throw is largely uninsurable.
In regard to the list of infrastructure targeted that was proposed in the discussion document, an insurance company noted tracks, drainage, silt damage to pasture, and earth dams as things that are essentially "land" and are not covered by a fire and general insurance policy. In terms of crop insurance: companies offer no cover (a few have fire cover) due to their high risk profile and therefore, crop replacement should be considered separately from farm infrastructure and recognised in the list government will provide aid for. Meetings with insurance companies also clarified boundary fencing as insurable.
Other submitters were pragmatic and commented “if the risk is able to be insured against and is not, then there should be no government funds to that claim”.
Direct business assistance options
The discussion document sought views on the following three options for the government’s future role in large-scale6 adverse events:
Option A: small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures only
Option B: compulsory insurance
Option C: direct business assistance
Of the three options supplied in the discussion document submitters favoured Option C: direct business assistance.
While many submitters supported the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures they felt more was required by government in a large scale event. Option A: providing only the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures was supported by nine percent of those who responded to this question.
Option B: Compulsory insurance
Eight-eight percent of submitters overwhelmingly rejected both the compulsory insurance options. The overall reason for this rejection was
- inequity between high and low risk producers and, urban and rural people;
- it would cause cross-subsidy between landusers and inequity between high and low risk producers;
- the practicalities of its implementation would be extremely difficult to implement fairly;
- it would promote unsustainable practices, devolve personal responsibility, promote risk taking behaviour and landowners would become complacent;
- it would become another tax that landowners could ill afford and would add to the high compliance costs farmers are facing;
- bad experience with ACC - same issues with this; and
- it requires more analysis and consultation to adequately assess.
As insurance is available for some components of rural businesses, some submitters suggested the following improvements:
- greater insurance awareness;
- encourage insurance uptake;
- provide clear guidelines on government assistance so producers can make an informed choice on insurance cover; and
- revise the fire service levy - insurance premium has a free rider problem.
There was the suggestion that compulsory insurance could be considered for areas regularly affected by floods and there were concerns over some farmers being either uninsured or under-insured. The Earthquake Commission was raised at two consultation meetings, firstly, where it fits with the insurance measures and secondly, the importance of aligning any insurance measure with existing earthquake damage provisions.
Direct business assistance
Four sub-options were provided in the discussion document regarding direct business assistance. Of the submitters who favoured direct business assistance, most (40 percent) supported C4 - the reimbursed cash grant. There was also support for the targeted cash grant option (23 percent) and moderate favour was provided for C1 - the concessional loan (15 percent). The remaining 22 percent were split between C2 - the general cash grant, continuation of the Agricultural Recovery Programme (ARP) used in 2004, or a combination of C3 and C4 - the targeted and reimbursed grants or a combination of C1 and C3 - the concessional loan and targeted cash grant.
Supporters of reimbursed cash grant (C4) argued that this ensured the assistance was wisely used and met the purpose of recovery. Supporters of targeted cash grant (C3) argued that this option would deal with businesses more on an individual basis.
Opponents of cash grants argued that this assistance was inequitable as some farmers do take appropriate risk mitigation measures and therefore avoid serious impacts from an adverse event. Opponents of cash grants also felt they rewarded free-riders and that this measure would discriminate against those who are insured by removing any incentive to take up insurance. Opponents of cash grants also felt the grants had the potential to be spent on items unrelated to recovery and could act as incentives for risk-taking.
Other comments/suggestions from submitters on direct business assistance were:
- The appropriate combination of assistance should reflect the nature of the particular adverse event. Consideration should be given to providing a range of financial mechanisms to deliver special assistance.
- One submitter considered that the landowner’s personal insurance should be taken into account.
- Grants should be linked to the severity of an event.
- Support for 50 percent assistance for replacement of on-farm infrastructure, to take into account the average age of the infrastructure being replaced.
- For the targeted cash grant option, suggest using a letter of endorsement for finances for approved work.
- Suggestion for the Australian and New Zealand Standard for Risk Management AS/NZS 4360: 2004 provides a good model for farmers to undertake risk evaluation. Local civil defence and emergency planning could incorporate information from farm risk management plans to mitigate risks. Government could then be more certain cash grants were appropriate.
- Need to review the Fire Service Tax Levy so it is effective in dealing with residual risks rather than subsidising predictable losses.
- Suggest promotion of widespread risk management practices - insurance awareness, providing farm-level programmes to reduce and mitigate adverse events; recognising climate change and promote sustainable land management processes; allowing insurers to design policies and place the responsibility with the farmer to seek insurance.
- Cash grants should be provided to encourage plantings to reduce erosion.
- There should be a choice between paying insurers or joining a proactive land use scheme e.g. money would be spent on tree planting on erosion prone land. Also need development of industry codes of practice for levels of stored feed, erosion risk etc.
- One submitter felt the "Sustainable Land Use Initiative" by Horizons Regional Council should be supported with at least 50 percent funding on a 20 year basis.
- Better tax and rates relief.
- Amend the Resource Management Act - need for the consent process to be sped up in order to speed recovery.
- Need to capture the knowledge gained from the 2004 Manawatu event. A technical booklet incorporating the most effective techniques for solving the issues encountered – information gathered by Dexcel and AgResearch during these adverse events needs to be centrally managed.
- Drought assistance programme needs to be formulated separately. Drought affected farmers need help with stock feed, water supplies, pasture recovery, transport of feed and stock. Different criteria are needed and clarity on assistance within drought events.
- In drought – if risk reduction and readiness phases have been fully developed the recovery is minimised. Droughts are not included in the CDEM portfolio so need to be considered completely separately.
Immediate cash grants drew favour with a few participants at the consultation meetings who saw them as valuable at addressing immediate, short-term needs. There were some suggestions that a combined targeted or reimbursed cash grant hybridised with the general cash grant should be considered. Several consultation groups also felt concessional loans should be made available in localised but severe events.
Criteria
The proposed matrix approach was generally supported by consultation meeting attendees and was seen as a positive development. There was, however, disagreement among written submitters surrounding the criteria.
Of the written submissions many supported the matrix but did not say why. Others felt it wasn’t flexible enough (flexibility was highly stressed by meeting participants) and assistance should be based on a case-by-case basis.
Many submitters felt the criteria were based too much around a large geographical impact and felt that in an event where a few severely affected farmers were affected, business assistance should be available. There was concern the matrix discriminated against geographically spread communities and against individuals. The length, isolation and population size in some districts (i.e. the West Coast) will make it difficult for these areas to qualify for assistance.
One submitter felt the capacity for the community to cope should be altered to include “individual” capacity to cope, while others felt multi-district events should be classed within the large scale event and be eligible for more than just the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures. The 2004 eastern Bay of Plenty floods were used in support of this claim (as the proposed criteria would mean the Bay of Plenty floods would be classed as a medium event and not eligible for special assistance). There was suggestion of another category being placed between the medium and large-scale event classifications. Overall, more assistance was sought by submitters at the small-scale level.
Submitters also felt government assistance should be based on a community’s capability to deal with, and recover from, an adverse event, and assessment of the scale of the events should be made at the local level, not by central government. There was also comment that further information should be provided in the matrix as to how these criteria are measured – what would be the decision making process for determining “how readily available” risk management options were. The matrix should clarify that the unitary authorities are regions.
Two submitters mentioned different criteria are needed, as well as clarity on assistance within drought events, as drought affected farmers need help with stock feed, water supplies, pasture recovery, transport of feed and stock. These needs are different from what occurs in a flood type event.
Other comments regarding issues which impact on recovery
Response
In general, two main issues identified around response are the speed of response and a lack of information for farmers about who to call or go to when assistance is required.
Many suggested a need for “local response teams” or “emergency relief teams” who could call or visit each property, to ascertain the degree of impact. These response teams could then prioritise where help is most needed and work in with the civil defence emergency management group.
Agricultural recovery facilitators are strongly supported by submitters who feel they should be appointed more quickly or be available as part of this response team on standby. The telephone and power infrastructure needs to be restored as soon as possible. Also, the implementation of Taskforce Green needs to be more streamlined and its activation needs to be delegated from Cabinet, removing the need to wait for Cabinet approval. The importance of consistency in government response across the country for both urban and rural communities was also discussed throughout the consultation meetings.
Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM)
Some comments regarding CDEM were made by both written submissions and participants at consultation meetings. In particular, a quicker response and greater interaction between CDEM groups and MAF was identified as necessary. There were several comments about the ability of civil defence response in rural areas, that local government has inadequate resources for civil defence, and that involvement in CDEM in adverse events can reflect the financial resources of districts. One suggestion was made that a database of farm leaders who could aid civil defence be kept and also the CDEM emergency response should include immediate welfare of stock, snow raking, restoring feed and water supplies. A need for clearer understanding of respective responsibilities and expectations is required and a suggestion that Rural Support Trusts be given a lead role and work with all central and regional government departments. Other suggestions included:
- volunteers should be paid;
- defence forces need emergency relief training;
- civil defence is urban focused and hasn’t the knowledge needed for rural assistance. Rural people have their own networks that help each other when needed – these networks should be drawn on further; and
- MAF needs to be involved with Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) from the start.
CDEM representatives at the consultation meetings suggested that the terminology in the matrix should be consistent with that in CDEM publications, and that the focus on recovery was too narrow with greater emphasis needed on a “4R’s”7 risk management framework.
Key submitter views
Federated Farmers
Fourteen percent of total submissions received (10 out of 72) were from Federated Farmer groups. In general, they all supported business assistance and felt government had a role. All valued the Agricultural Recovery Programme and supported its continuation for future adverse events. Of the special assistance options, the reimbursed cash grant was preferred, but all suggested the re-grassing, re-cropping aid included in the ARP be included in the reimbursed cash grant option. Additional to the re-grassing and re-cropping was a request by one group for government aid for airstrip and cattle and sheep yard damage as well as the uninsurable infrastructure listed in the discussion document. Most also supported the inclusion of rates relief. One group supported the concessional loan option and all dismissed the compulsory insurance option as well as option A - providing only the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures even in a large-scale event.
All but one group supported the capped assistance of $250,000 and agreed with the excess but most felt it should be “$5,000 or 10 percent, whichever was greater”.
All supported Rural Support Trusts and felt they had an important role in recovery. Some felt their role could be extended to response and others felt they should be further financially supported by government.
In terms of criteria there was some disagreement, with some in favour while other groups were concerned about its flexibility. One suggested events should be judged on a case-by-case basis and several commented that the matrix doesn’t provide enough consideration for farmers affected by localised yet extreme events. Drought events were also asked to be considered on a case-by-case basis due to the different needs of this event e.g. transport costs for feed, etc.
Note: Chatham group not consulted and have no access to Taskforce Green assistance due to small population. A request was made for special consideration e.g. grants to Rural Support Trusts for Chathams (as there are none) should go to the council etc.
Local Council /CDEM groups
Local council/CDEM groups represented 17 percent (12 out of 72) of total submissions. In general this group supported the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures but had an issue with finding people for enhanced Taskforce Green due to low unemployment. Suggest wages for (enhanced) Taskforce Green be increased to reflect conditions of work, greater funding to supply coordinators for Taskforce Green and that debris / silt removal and internal fencing be included in the list eligible for government aid. One comment was made regarding new start grants and that careful consideration was needed in regard to these grants and sustainable land use.
Limited comment was made on the special recovery measures. One supported a mix of targeted and general cash grants. All rejected compulsory insurance but felt there was room for better promotion of voluntary insurance options.
This wider group supported the matrix but wanted it to be a mandatory part of decision making process and felt more assistance is needed for smaller, more widespread communities, e.g. coastal communities more at risk with climate change. Suggested multi-district events should be placed in large-scale events column within the matrix.
All councils supported Rural Support Trusts and thought they could play a larger role with the help of MAF. Also suggested MAF promote a national assessment unit to gather information by air / satellite to quickly ascertain ground response needed etc.
Rural Support Trusts
Fourteen percent (10 out of 72) of total submissions were from representatives of Rural Support Trusts / rural relief trusts. Their main issue was with regard to response and greater links with government. There was a suggestion for a volunteer team ready to go in response to an adverse event. District response team could then advise CDEM and MAF as to if action is required.
There was support for enhanced Taskforce Green and particular mention for the work of the Agricultural Recovery Facilitator (ARF). Of the business assistance options mooted by MAF’s discussion document, one thought compulsory insurance may be an option with more discussion, one favoured the targeted cash grant, one supported the reimbursed cash grant and two felt an interest free loan should be included as an option.
There were equally different opinions regarding the matrix, with one supporting it, one feeling it needed further definition so everyone would know what assistance would be provided more quickly, and another saying adverse events should be judged on an individual case-by-case basis.
Many felt a larger role for RSTs was possible for some groups but there was a need to differentiate between relief trust (short term response) and support trust (long term) and to bear in mind many of the people on the trusts are elderly. There were also the suggestions that RSTs could aid in response and recovery work as peers rather than as experts. Operations would function better if in times of crisis if the district roles of RSTs and emergency trusts were more clearly defined and understood.
Forestry industry group
Eight percent (6 out of 72) of total submissions came from the forestry group. Agreement was reached by this group that government does have some role in aiding recovery through essential infrastructure repair. There were, however, concerns regarding direct business assistance. These were that business assistance may shield individuals from commercial and financial implications which have the potential to distort land value and land-use management, and that the document doesn’t acknowledge fiscal obligations in the face of a widespread extreme event. The on-going financial exposure to the Crown associated with inappropriate land management practices in many areas is unsustainable. It was accepted that government has a role in public safety and restoring public infrastructure but this group was cautious in supporting any business assistance. Particularly, there was concern around the potential for this policy to discriminate against forestry as a land-use option. The group felt forestry has demonstrated greater resilience to withstand adverse events, therefore forestry landowners would be indirectly subsidising their neighbours if taxes paid by foresters go to fund adverse events recovery.
When asked which business assistance option was favoured, there were differences of opinion. One felt only the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures were equitable and two out of the four thought a targeted or reimbursed option was best.
There was unease from the forestry industry that this review did not adequately take into account forestry recovery or the fact that that wind throw of trees is difficult to insure as well as the expense of afforestation, with young trees (up to six to eight years) being particularly vulnerable to adverse events.
Rural Support Trusts were supported, as was the inclusion of re-grassing (excluding re-grassing on marginal land) in the list government would consider partially funding.
Horticulture Industry Group
Four percent (3 out of 72) of total submissions came from the horticulture industry group. Of that four percent, all supported the small-scale and medium-scale recovery measures with particular mention for the good work of enhanced Taskforce Green. Acknowledgement was also given to the Agricultural Recovery Programme (ARP) and respondents thought the ARP was successful in aiding recovery, particularly through silt removal and crop recovery. The group suggested silt removal, structure and vine rehabilitation, shelter belt restoration, and orchard access should be included in the government’s assistance list.
Of those that responded to the questions regarding business assistance, the targeted cash grant was favoured by this group with an excess of 10 percent damage which is not capped.
Only two comments regarding the criteria were made. One supported the matrix while the other felt government should help with uninsurable costs regardless of event size. There was a suggestion that new start grants be included regardless of event size.
Counselling support by Rural Support Trusts was acknowledged as successful. One recommended the trusts be funded 50 percent by government and be involved more in mobilising volunteers.
1 Recovery measures for small-scale events were referred to as the “general recovery measures” in the discussion document.
2 Recovery measures for medium-scale events were referred to as the “emergency recovery measures” in the discussion document.
3 The discussion document listed boundary fencing; access (tracks, races, culverts); water supplies (dams, reticulation and troughs), drainage and effluent ponds.
4 Recovery measures for small-scale events were referred to as the “general recovery measures” in the discussion document.
5 Recovery measures for medium-scale events were referred to as the “emergency recovery measures” in the discussion document.
6 Large-scale being as big or bigger than the 2004 Lower North Island floods.
7 4R’s: Risk Reduction; Readiness; Response and Recovery.
Contact for Enquiries
Manager
North Island Regions
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Hamilton
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 7 957 8313
Contact this person
