Guy Trafford points out that with Labour raiding the Climate Emergency Response Fund, and National policies fully disemboweling it, farmers must realise they will be on their own at the next inevitable natural disaster

If ever there was a time when farmers and families could expect government assistance after a natural disaster then now would be the time.  Elections have always been at time when the cheque books are brought out and promises made.

Arguably this could be considered more important, at least in the short term, to what the longer term aspirational climate policies are.

The $80 mln promised back in June has now run out and while a further $10 mln is being rolled out, given the work that still is essential to get the affected regions back into productive states, some are saying a further $150-$200 mln is required and the current funding is not going to go far.  Unfortunately, for the regions the spending focus has been more about what can be cut. The bulk of the offerings coming from the current government has been in the form of loans to help large business and employers and the government providing the ‘back stop’ for banks and other lenders by taking up to 80% of the default risk.

It would be disingenuous to imply that the government has not dug deep and provided large amounts of recovery funding as it committed $941 mln back in May “to rebuild communities”. Of this $475 mln is allocated to rebuild road and rail infrastructure, $100 mln for flood protection, notably rebuilding and lifting stop-banks, $35 mln to support local communities, $6 mln for foodbanks and the like and with a focus on boosting employment, $116 mln to repair or rebuild “weather affected schools, $10 mln for mental health support, $16 mln frontline health providers, and another $10m for disaster response costs. By my counting this comes to $768 mln leaving $173 mln to be accounted for.

When it comes to direct funding to clean up the mess, there have been a number of announcements which are summarised below:

- February/March, $74 mln Farmer and grower fund for urgent recovery efforts a further $10 mln added to this in October to continue work.

- May, $35.4 mln to support wellbeing, health and safety and animal welfare.

- May, $10.15 mln to assist in the removal and prevention of forestry slash

- A further $25.2 mln (Hill country erosion fund) to be spent over the next 4 years to be spent around New Zealand to protect around 21,000ha of hill country across New Zealand (around $483 per ha?). To date by my count $21.5 mln has be already allocated from Northland to Southland so given it is meant to be allocated in four x 1yearly allocations little remains for the future.

- May, the Solid Waste Management Fund $15 mln provided to Councils upon application to assist paying for the clearing of debris etc from residential areas.

The above allocations come to $170 mln, so a tad under the ‘missing’ $173m and I may will have missed some so perhaps all of the $941 mln has been allocated. Due to the widespread distribution of when and where reports of funding is recorded for the public, this is at most a best guess.

So, given what is being promised, what has also to be added by councils and insurance companies and also given that Treasury has estimated the cost of Cyclone Gabrielle (and the then recent earlier weather events) is somewhere between $9 bln and $14 bln, how much can the public expect government and councils to pay to alleviate the impacts?

Money to be spent on prevention, which is also included in the above list shouldn’t come into this thinking as that is or should be part of an urgent but longer-term strategy.

There will be some who believe farmers and land owners are on the own and fixing up the effects of natural events needs to be a part of the ‘cost of doing business’ and landowners sink or swim on their own.

If the public purse is involved, judging by the Treasury estimates, future councils and governments without building specific funds, like EQC but presumably only greater, will not be able to support too many Cyclone Gabrielle like events.

Even if a disaster fund is not developed enough in its own right to support helping farmers etc it may perhaps be able to support the additional debt servicing required for borrowed funds to aid and assist those affected. Currently there are still plenty of farmers whose land was inundated with both silt and slash waiting for the means and funds to get it removed. So even with the best intensions (presumably) and having the physical capabilities to clean up cyclone impacts it will take time.

It’s not as though the machinery and people are just sitting around waiting to be put to good use. While both major parties have released their climate policies, they are both somewhat light on how they would respond or more importantly fund future natural disasters.

Labour has its recent past record to look to, while National has released a similar looking programme.

The current government (Labour) did set up in 2021 the Climate Emergency Response Fund (CERF) with a $4.3 bln seeding amount. Future funding is (was) meant to come from ‘dividends from the ETS programme. The fund was meant to provide funding to help future proof New Zealand with resilience and adaption programmes although there is no evidence that it was from this fund that the $941 mln was extracted.

Unfortunately, the lure of such a pool of cash has been too much for both parties in an election year with Labour already ‘pilfering, $1.9 bln to put towards “addressing the cost of living concerns’ and National basically disemboweling the fund to use to reduce future taxation.

While farmers and others living in areas impacted by climatic events perhaps should not look to the government in future, opportunities to self-help are not great. What is likely to happen is that areas which look increasingly prone to being hit by Mother Nature will get increasingly discounted in value. This will not help existing owners and selling to forestry or just getting out of high cost horticultural systems will appear increasingly attractive.

One recent bright note is that government has just ruled on logging waste over 2 metres. Under the new regulations, slash longer than two metres, and with a large-end diameter of more than 10 cm, must be removed after harvesting from erosion-prone land unless it is unsafe to do so. This is a minimum standard across the country, and councils can apply more stringent requirements if they choose.

In addition, local councils will have more power to decide where new commercial forests – including carbon forests – are located, to reduce impacts on communities and the environment, Environment Minister David Parker said. Perhaps too late for most, but better than before. But if I was still farming I think I would have to consider that in the future I would be on my own.