The Kurow Resource Committee
Sources of funding
The Kurow Resource Committee received by far the least amount of external funding of the five groups studied in this report. The Canterbury Regional Council provides the group's only external funding for field day advertising and some administration costs. Of the total costs of $31,400 per year the external funding provides for only $1,000 or 3 percent of this.
The Kurow Resource Committee operated differently to the other four groups in this report. The Kurow group only becomes active when there are pressing resource issues to resolve. After the resource committee has become involved in an issue and taken steps to address it, the group goes into senescence until another issue arises.
By far the largest contribution made to the Kurow Resource Committee came from group members' and farmers' time donated in-kind. $24,000 per year or 77 percent of the group's total annual funding came in this form. The Canterbury Regional Council also contributed time to the value of $6,300 per year or 20 percent of the group's total annual expenditure.
Expenditure by type of activity
When the Kurow Resource Committee is analysed by expenditure on the type of activity, the two largest expenditure areas are field day expenses and the running of community groups. These two areas used $12,000 each or approximately 40 percent of the total annual expenditure. The Kurow Resource Committee ran two field days per year, which were funded by the Canterbury Regional Council. In comparison to the other groups, the Kurow Resource Committee committed significantly more of its resources to field days due mainly to its low-key approach and lack of external funding.
Expenditure by physical or technical issue
The Kurow Resource Committee spread its time and resources relatively evenly over four physical issues of soil physical status, air and water quality, animal and plant production, and other issues. The other areas that the resource committee focused on are pest management issues. Pest management received slightly more resources than the other issues and is likely to indicate the relative importance of the management of pest and weed infestations in the Kurow Hakataramea area.
The pest management committee has been very successful in liaising with the Regional Council to implement `user pays' for pest management in the area. The benefits of this achievement is that farmers are on better terms with the Regional Council and therefore resource issues are likely to be resolved more efficiently and effectively. The Kurow Pest Management Committee uses only $9000 per year and shows how effective it is at implementing change in the area.
The Kurow Resource Committee is a good example of how a poorly funded but highly enthusiastic group of farmers can achieve a range of outputs for both farmers and Regional Council in their area. The approach that the Kurow Resource Committee has taken, where they form when resource issues need to be addressed, may be a more efficient way of managing voluntary sustainable land management groups in areas similar to the Kurow/Hakataramea district.
| © MAF 1999 |  |
|
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Manager
North Island Regions
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Hamilton
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 7 957 8313
Contact this person
