The Resilience and Response of Farm Households in the Aftermath of the 2006 Canterbury Snow Storm
Conclusions
The Manawatu floods of 2004 were a major disaster. On reflection, that no lives were lost is somewhat surprising, if extremely fortunate. The Canterbury snow event of 2006 was never officially declared a disaster, but that a major disaster did not occur was largely due to good fortune and the failure of other snow storms to eventuate in the weeks that followed 12 June 2006. This current report and its companion volume focus on the social impact of these adverse events. A number of specific recommendations or conclusions may be drawn form the evidence presented.
The rural population demand and expect greater accountability from both Telecom and the government regarding the loss of telecommunications. To some extent this issue appears in hand; however, a further back-up approach suggested by some respondents was that generators should be put in phone exchanges with a key given to a responsible local who can charge it off a vehicle if the power goes out.
- Other respondents considered there was a need for councils to establish standards (mirroring the building standards) for power/phone services depending on potential hazards of a region (for example, more appropriate spacing of power poles in key areas).
- The need to improve cell phone reception and reliability in rural areas, supported if necessary by government action.
- There was widespread recognition and support for the establishment of Emergency Response Teams, and it was noted that these should be well-publicised as to their role and the individuals concerned.
- There was a widespread belief that Civil Defence should review how it handles snow events and seek community input as to how to improve its response in the future.
- It was noted that Civil Defence should annually send out a leaflet to each home in the region reminding of need to be prepared for potential hazards – snow, drought, floods, and the like. This leaflet should include vital Civil Defence information, such as the location of the local radio telephone, the identity of the operator, and which radio station will be broadcasting Civil Defence instructions.
- There was a unanimous view that the proposed ban on log burners and wetbacks in Canterbury should be reviewed because of their vital role in reducing the vulnerability of people to an adverse event and the potential failure of centralised services. One proposed alternative was the establishment of efficiency standards in place of an outright ban.
As the previous section and Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 highlight, the causes of disasters may be found in the deep-seated economic, political and social ideologies that provide the broad context within which we live and work. Long-term efforts to mitigate disasters must consequently address such drivers whether through policies for sustainable land management, community cohesion, or land use change. However, in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, as this report has highlighted, the capacity to respond and the resilience of the population rests on the continued viability of the local community, and indeed on the resilience of individual households.
Both this report and that on the floods highlight the stress that disasters impose on the family unit. May Greenslade, a respondent, former Executive Member of Rural Women, and a woman active in community affairs, expresses the need to ensure household resilience (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Back to basics—The sustainability of a farm household
As figure 8 illustrates, the family unit is the primary line of defence in the face of disaster. The modern farm household lacks a resonant labour force other than close family members. Technological change at times constrains a farmer’s capacity to manage his property single-handedly when disaster strikes. In floods or heavy snows two people can better manage stock and provide vital physical and psychological support to one another. Too often women in particular remain the hidden victims, with the man working alone out on the property, while women are often restricted to the house looking after their children, but under severe stress knowing their partner needs help, uncertain of his whereabouts, unable to access support facilities, and lonely. Figure 8 shows that by tapping into existing local (female) volunteer capacity (possibly using the existing network of Rural Women), the pressure on farm women could be greatly eased and many of the practical farm problems simultaneously resolved. This simple, cheap solution is of course no panacea to the problems adverse events produce. However it does highlight that, at its core, a disaster generates major social pressures that may lead to disastrous long-term social problems. Filling the gap left by the ‘hollowing-out’ of rural New Zealand will take imagination and time. As this report has argued, a good starting point is the individual farm household.
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
