The Resilience and Response of Farm Households in the Aftermath of the 2006 Canterbury Snow Storm
Changes resulting from the snow event
Most farmers believe they managed to get through the snow. Few said they would be making changes to their farms in order to be ‘more prepared’ for adverse events in the future. However, a small number of farmers have purchased generators, built snow blades for tractors, changed winter feed crops, or ceased winter shearing or milking. Some also said that they will carry more feed for coming winters. Almost every farmer said that the snow had reinforced for them the need to be prepared, in particular the need to have extra feed stored, and most felt that the event showed that they were already quite well prepared. Nevertheless, many farmers still have the ‘we’ll take it as it comes’ attitude.
Emergency Response Team
Most farmers believe the idea of setting up a local ‘Emergency Response Team’ based on the Ashburton model is an excellent idea. Some concern was expressed as to how to maintain such a group through years when it is not needed, or felt that it would work better if done at a community rather than at a regional level (e.g. Cave or Albury communities rather than Mackenzie district). Many felt this should have already been in place as part of the role of Civil Defence.
Vulnerability, disasters and disaster response
As this report is a companion report to Resilience and Farm Family Response in the Aftermath of the 2004 Manawatu Floods, it is appropriate to examine the two events concurrently and draw similarities from the responses to the different events. This is done using the Pressure and Release (PAR) model: The Progression of Vulnerability (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Pressure and Release (PAR) model: The progression of vulnerability
In evaluating disaster risk, such as that posed by a flood or a snow storm, the social production of vulnerability needs to be considered with the same degree of importance as that devoted to addressing and understanding the natural hazard (Wisner, et al., 2003). To this extent a disaster can be viewed as the result of the interaction between vulnerability and a (natural) hazard. ‘Hazard’ refers to the natural events that may affect different places (coastline, hillsides, flood plains, earthquake faults, etc), and may have a varying degree of intensity and severity. ‘Vulnerability’ is the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard (Wisner, et al., 2003). Vulnerability is thus a socially-produced phenomenon based on the choices that people make, and how they react and respond to underlying social, political and economic ideologies. Risk (to a disaster) (R) is therefore the product of the two factors ‘hazard’ (H) and ‘vulnerability’ (V), and can be expressed in the following equation:
R = H x V
The Pressure and Release (PAR) model shows how disasters occur when hazards affect vulnerable people. It demonstrates how a disaster is the intersection of two opposing forces: those generating vulnerability on one side, and the natural hazard event on the other side (Wisner, et al., 2003). The model resembles a nutcracker with ‘pressure’ being exerted from both sides. ‘Release’ is incorporated into the model through the idea that to release the pressure, vulnerability must be reduced (Wisner, et al., 2003). The progression of vulnerability has three sets of links that connect the disaster to processes that are located at decreasing levels of specificity from the people impacted upon by a disaster. First is root causes, which are an interrelated set of general processes that operate within a society and the world economy. They are a function of economic, political and social structures. Secondly, dynamic pressures are the processes and activities that translate the effects of root causes into the third set, unsafe conditions; the specific forms in which the vulnerability of a population is expressed in time and space in conjunction with a hazard.
In examining the PAR model with respect to the flood and snow events, a number of similarities between the two can be drawn (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: The progression of farmers’ vulnerability
A number of root causes exist which affect New Zealand farmers and their farms. Since the 1980s the reforms in New Zealand have removed farming subsidies, meaning that farmers are now required to be more self-reliant than ever before. Also, successive governments, with the goal of economic efficiency, have privatised essential services, most notably telecommunications, or transformed other services into State Owned Enterprises. Because farming by its nature is a rural activity that for the most part takes place at some considerable distance from major population centres, in often isolated locations with low population densities, the relative cost of providing essential services to these areas is high. The economic reforms (combined with wider global trends) also impacted upon the profitability/viability of many farms, and consequently farming systems have changed, becoming more mechanised and relying on fewer employees. This has led to declines in some rural populations. Due to these maintenance costs and the fact that fewer people are affected, rural services may be neglected. New Zealand has a traditional stereotype of ‘the rural man’: independent, rugged and insensitive. Entrenched in this stereotype are the beliefs that men do not ask for help, let alone admit their feelings. Farming systems are inherently dependent on climate; especially rainfall and sunshine hours for pasture growth. New Zealand is affected by a large range of hazards (including snow storms and floods, but also earthquakes, wind storms, volcanoes, fires, landslides). These events vary in their temporal and spatial distribution, and are usually difficult or impossible to predict.
There are a number of dynamic pressures affecting farmers as a result of the root causes. Farmers often operate with small profits margins, as they have large debts and high mortgage repayment rates. The cost of investing in disaster preparedness can be quite significant, and for most years, when no disaster occurs, this investment yields no return. Because of this, many farmers lack the necessary equipment, such as snow ploughs and generators, which are essential (or at least desirable) in tackling a hazard of this nature. These conditions foster a reactive mentality with some farmers believing that they could not be affected by a hazard; the ‘it won’t happen to me’ attitude. As has much of the rest of society, farmers have become increasingly reliant on new technologies, especially electronic telecommunications. Phones, and increasingly cell phones are significantly more important than they have been in the past, as are television, the internet, and a range of other electrical appliances. The changing nature of farming has resulted in a change in the structure of rural populations, one consequence of which is decreasing community networks.
As a result of the root causes and dynamic pressures, many farmers face unsafe conditions and hence are in a vulnerable position with respect to natural hazards, thus increasing the likelihood of the hazard becoming a disaster. Many farmers are unprepared or under-prepared for a natural hazard. This is manifested in a number of ways. Inter-dependence among the community has decreased as many traditional community and social networks have been eroded. Farmers can no longer rely on unconditional support from governments, as they have done in the past. Economic pressures have forced some farmers to adopt risky farming practices in order to meet financial obligations. Many more farms now have no labour force resident on the farm.
Consequently, disastrous results may include farmers not having enough feed stored for their animals and being unable to access animals. Farming families are increasingly forced to cope alone, exacerbating their feelings of isolation and increasing conditions for psychological and physical exhaustion and stress.
Figure 6: The progression of safety
Figure 6 demonstrates how ‘pressures’ can be released to reduce disaster, by addressing root causes and reducing pressures to achieve safe conditions, which in turn reduce the risk of a disaster. Additionally, the nature of the hazard itself can also be reduced. With respect to the Canterbury snow storm and Manawatu floods a number of pressures could be released to decrease pressure and improve resilience in the face of future adverse events (Figure 7).
Figure 7: The release of pressures to reduce disasters: progression of safety for farmers
In order to decrease the vulnerability of farmers to hazards, the first step is to address the root causes, for instance by challenging existing ideologies and stereotypes, taking measures to decrease dependence on climate and increasing independence from central infrastructure services. This can be achieved in a number of ways such as lobbying government for investment in and improvement of essential services to rural areas; adopting more resilient farming methods and sustainable practices, such as switching crops and animals to those better suited to local climates, rather than attempting to moderate climate through measures such as irrigation; and taking initiatives to prepare better for future hazards through the purchase of necessary equipment, formation of community groups and liaison with local councils and Civil Defence organisations. These tactics should achieve safe conditions, such as hazard preparedness in terms of human capital and infrastructure, which in turn should reduce the disaster risk: decreasing loss of stock and stock conditioning, decreasing physical and psychological stresses on farming families, decreasing isolation and vulnerability, and increasing self-reliance.
Furthermore, a number of specific measures could be taken to reduce the impact of the hazard, including planting shelterbelts and riparian strips, and catchment management.
Contact for Enquiries
North Island
Phil Journeaux
Manager
North Island Regions
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Private Bag 3123
Hamilton
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 7 957 8314
Fax: +64 7 957 8315
South Island
John Greer
Regional Team Leader
Natural Resources Group
MAF Policy
PO Box 20 280
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 3 943 1703
Fax: +64 3 943 1757
Contact this person
