ASSISTANCE FROM SNOW RELIEF ORGANISATIONS

Farmers (N=139) were asked whether they used any Relief Organisation to assist with the sourcing of volunteer snowrakers, machinery, hay or helicopters. Seventy four percent responded in the affirmative (high country 90%, hill country 78%, Banks Peninsula 77%, downs 58% and plains 72%). Organisations most frequently used included Federated Farmers (70%), District Councils (40%), MAF (9%), Red Cross (6%), Snow Relief Committees (3%) and to a lesser extent Womens Division of Federated Farmers, Search and Rescue, Department of Conservation, church and service clubs. Ninety five percent of farmers found these services useful (extremely useful 52%, very useful 25% and some use 18%) many farmers wishing to acknowledge the help and generosity given by so many. There is little doubt that without help many thousands of sheep would have perished.

* Features which farmers liked about the response:

Features liked Response (%)
Allocation of hay 31
Allocation of snowrakers 21
Burial of sheep 8
Allocation of helicopters 4

Features which farmers liked about the control centre:


Features liked Response (%)



* Well organised - excellent effort 15



* Most farmers contacted - moral boost 10



* People at control centre had local knowledge 7



* Prompt road clearing (District Council) 5



* Federated Farmers response time good 3



* Supervisor sent with local labour 3



* Department of Conservation radios 1



Farmers appreciated the individual telephone calls enquiring as to their situation and needs. Tins provided moral support in the knowledge that help was near and that experienced people were there to talk to.

Features about the control centres which could be improved:

Features to be improved: Response %
Improved co-ordination between organisations 2
District Council needs better gear e.g. snowploughs for trucks 2
Negative media comment 1
Need more phones in control centre 1
Start snowrakers earlier 1
Local authority to fly area and formulate plan of action 1
Use retired farmers. Full time farmers are too busy 1
Some advice would have been helpful 1
MAF would be better suited to distribute services e.g. hay 1

The problems with communications lay generally in remote areas where immediate repairs are difficult. There was an appeal that alternatives including radio drops be looked at. The reference to the need for experienced supervisors arose from situations where, for example, 10 year olds were sent out requiting supervision which is not always available. A plea for the local authority to fly the district early to establish target areas so as to formulate a strategic plan which would involve the co-ordination of all relevant bodies was made.

Use of Government services

Farmers were generally happy with the services provided by the Army, although some were concerned about the time it took for them to arrive on their properties (Table 24). Whether this was the fault of the Army or the organising centre was not identified. More problems were identified with the Airforce - mainly communication problems where helicopters either did not arrive or arrived late. However many found the Iroquois excellent for ferrying hay to snowbound stock.

Table 24: Farmers Assessment of Services Provided by the NZ Army and Airforce

Opinion Army % Airforce %
Excellent/outstanding 20.7 11.9
Good 55.3 50.8
Average/slow 13.8 22.4
Not equitable 3.4 1.5
Co-ordination poor 1.7 8.9
Service not offered 5.1 4.5

Eighty seven percent of farmers were satisfied with the services provided by the Task Force Green Labour scheme and found them very helpful in cleaning up after the snows (Table 25).

However some (13%) were unhappy and cited poor performance, inability to choose or obtain local staff as factors affecting their response.

Table 25: Farmers Assessment of Services Provided by Task Force Green

Opinion Response %
Satisfied
Excellent 15.8
Good 65.7
Satisfactory 5.3

Dissatisfied

Performance 5.3
Could not use local staff 2.6
Subject to abuse 2.6
Could not select staff 1.3
Too slow, excessive paperwork 1.3

Assistance/services available to farmers in future snows

Farmers were asked what assistance or services would be most valuable to them in a future snow. Sourcing and organising volunteer labour was the most frequent request (Table 26) with 28% of farmers happy to receive the same assistance that was provided in 1992 (organising labour, allocation of donated hay and allocation of Army and Airforce). The responsibility for organising labour was considered to lie predominantly with Federated Farmers (57%) and the District Council (36.4%) with only limited support for either the Army or MAF. Similar organisations were nominated by farmers wanting a repeat of the 1992 services.

Table 26: Assistance/Services Required by Farmers in a Future Snow

Assistance Response

(%)
Organising labour 35.1
Same as 1992 snows 28.1
Organising helicopter 19.8
Organising dozers 16.5
Prompt road access/clearance 15.7
Organising emergency feed 12.4
Assistance from the Army 8.3
Assistance from the Airforce 8.3
Faster telephone reconnections 7.4
Task force green 4.1
Better weather forecasting 3.3
Schedule of dozers, helicopter and feed availability 2.5
Radios for communication

2.5

Organisation of helicopters was the next most frequently requested service required (19.8%) for which Federated Farmers was seen as the preferred organising body (47.8%) followed by the District Council (30.4%), Airforce (8.7%), with others preferring to organise helicopters themselves or have MAF do it. Organising dozers was another priority (16.5%), the District Council being the major choice (61.1%) followed by Federated Farmers (33.4%) or MAF (5.6%). Prompt clearance of roads (15.7%) was seen as the responsibility of the District Council while the organisation of emergency feed (12.7%) was seen mainly as a Federated Farmers responsibility (84.6%). There was division among farmers as to whether Federated Farmers, District Council or MAF should be responsible for co-ordinating the services of the Airforce or Army and is an area which needs more input. Restoration of telephone communications was seen as the responsibility of Telecom with the support of the District Council.

Farmers emphasised the need for either Federated Farmers, District Council or MAF to have people with local knowledge on the organising committee and suggested that co-opting volunteer retired farmers would be ideal. Farmers considered it essential to be able to relate to organisers who understood the problems and knew the country. That consideration was perhaps more important than the origin of the organising body.

Snow Relief Trust

Eighty four percent of farmers received financial compensation from the Snow Relief Trust ranging from 100% in the high country to 69% in Banks Peninsula. The majority (86%) were satisfied with the way gift monies were distributed with most expressing their appreciation of such a terrific response by the community. Unsatisfied farmers (14%) considered that reimbursement was not proportioned to the financial loss incurred, that compensation was not consistent in that a farmer who used his own hay was penalised in proportion to the disorganised farmer who had to purchase extra feed, others felt that the monies should have been spread out more and better shared.

Previous Page TOC Next Page

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

 
Print this page Print this page




Biosecurity New Zealand Web Site