impacts and contributions of the ex-tropical cyclone oswald on … · 2016-05-24 · impacts and...

Impacts and contributions of

the Ex-Tropical Cyclone

Oswald On-farm Productivity

and Riparian Recovery

Program (2013-2015)

Social Science Program, Science Delivery Division

December 2015

Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation

Prepared by

Fiona McCartney, Jeanette Durante and Rod Goldsworthy

Social Science Program

Science Delivery Division


PO Box 5078

Brisbane QLD 4001

© The State of Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation) 2015

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The

copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence

Under this licence you are free, without having to seek permission from DSITI, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms.

You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation as the source of the publication.

For more information on this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of

publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made

by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this

document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy.

If you need to access this document in a language other than English, please call the Translating and Interpreting

Service (TIS National) on 131 450 and ask them to telephone Library Services on +61 7 3170 5725

Citation

McCartney, F., Durante, J. and Goldsworthy, R., 2015, Impacts and contributions of the Ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald On-

farm Productivity and Riparian Recovery Program (2013-2015), Department of Science, Information Technology and

Innovation (DSITI): Brisbane

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

Impacts and contributions of the Ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald On-farm Productivity and Riparian Recovery Program (2013-2015)

Executive summary

Under the joint Australian Government-State Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA), the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), in combination with the Commonwealth Government, delivered $15 million in short and medium term projects to those primary producing areas in Queensland that were most heavily impacted by ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald (January 2013). The money was administered through the Ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald on-farm productivity and riparian recovery program (henceforth referred to as “the Program”).

The objective of the Program was to provide funding and technical assistance for on-ground activities to help rural farming communities to restore enterprise productivity and implement environmental recovery initiatives in the hardest hit farming communities.

This study is part of a broader DNRM evaluation of the Program. Specifically, it sought to answer the key question:

Has the Program funding assisted landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without the funding?

The study also investigated whether the Program had any impact on the health and wellbeing of the Program participants, as well as its contribution to the recovery and ongoing resilience of their broader environments, economies and societies. In addition, questions were asked regarding the administration of the Program, particularly in relation to its efficiency and effectiveness.

The study used a mixed methodology research approach, comprising: a focus group interview (with landholders from the SEQC region); a quantitative online survey (with landholders and other stakeholders representing: regional NRM bodies, Queensland government; Landcare or catchment management groups; agricultural industry groups; local government and consultants/contractors) and 43 semi-structured open-ended telephone interviews (with 22 landholders and 18 of the stakeholder representatives). Generally the results from the online survey corroborated those of the focus group and telephone interviews. However, there were some important exceptions, in particular, with respect to whether the Program assisted landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner. Feedback regarding the administrative aspects of the Program also conflicted, where the findings from the survey and interviews mostly contradicted each other.

For the most part, the results from the online survey were overwhelmingly positive about the Program. In contrast, more criticisms were raised in the telephone interviews. Furthermore, landholders’ perspectives about the Program appeared to be somewhat different to those of non-landholders (or stakeholder representatives).

In summary:

Overall it was a successful Program The online survey results overwhelming indicated that the Program was successful. Correspondingly, the focus group and telephone interviewees thought the Program was successful. Nonetheless, the interviewees thought the long delay (estimated at between 6-9 months) in the roll out of the Program guidelines and subsequent funding to regional NRM bodies had an impact on the perceived effectiveness of the Program, with some stakeholder representatives stating that the protracted timelines resulted in the Program not being as successful as it could have been.

Page | 1


Contribution to agricultural production The main objective of this study was to determine what contribution the Program had to agricultural production and in particular, whether the funding had assisted landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without it. A very high majority of survey respondents believed that the Program contributed to assisting landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner. Whilst many interview respondents also believed that the Program assisted agricultural producers, there were concerns that the abovementioned time lag meant many agricultural landholders had already undertaken the work they needed to do, to get back into full agricultural production sooner. Furthermore, there were concerns that when these landholders were finally able to access funding, they often spent it on activities that did not necessarily get them back into production faster, or were not a high priority, and in some cases, would not necessarily have been undertaken, if the dollars had not been provided.

Contribution to riparian restoration Not every landholder who participated in the Program was a primary producer. Correspondingly, not all the work undertaken was related to primary production. However the objective of the Program was to assist landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without the funding. Nonetheless, it appears that in many cases agricultural enterprises were funded to undertake environmental restoration works, as opposed to activities that were directly related to returning to full agricultural production. In addition, there was a perception that some regional NRM bodies focussed on environmental recovery initiatives, rather than agricultural productivity.

Personal impact on participating landholders Landholders described the psychological stress associated with Cyclone Oswald. Similarly, many stakeholder representatives spoke about how some landholders were in a state of shock and did not appear to know what to do, nor have the capacity to work out what they needed from the Program, in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone. Nevertheless, landholders expressed sentiments of appreciation, gratitude and relief, as a consequence of participating in the Program. This corresponds highly with the survey results, in which the vast majority of landholders felt supported (92%), grateful (85%) happier (82%), and relieved (67%), as a result of participating in the Program.

There was also a perception that landholders were talking about mental health issues more in general. Correspondingly, there were calls for direct delivery organisations (such as regional NRM bodies) to have adequate training in mental health first aid, particularly as it was thought that there were not enough psychological support services for the general community, in the aftermath of Cyclone Oswald.

Contribution to broader economy Both the telephone interview and online survey respondents accredited the Program with positively contributing to the local economy. In addition, the interviewees spoke about how assisting agricultural producers was a strategic and effective way of creating flow on effects to the rest of the community.

Examples of the economic contribution the Program provided to the community included employing consultants for specialised advice (e.g. agronomy, geomorphology, soil testing) and local contractors for specialised activities (e.g. dozer driving, excavating, road grading, laser levelling, manure spreading, fencing). However, even those landholders who undertook the work themselves spoke about how the funding enabled them to purchase equipment and materials from local suppliers (e.g. fencing, rocks, fuel, seed), thereby having a flow on effect to the local economy. However, there were also criticisms of the employment of expensive, non-local specialists, to provide “advice only”, as opposed to the money being spent directly on on-ground activities.


Contribution to broader society

Interview respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program contributed to the broader society. There were mixed replies to this question, with some believing there were limited social benefits, as it appeared that a number of landholders who were interviewed were not even aware of whether their neighbours or others in their area participated in the Program.

In contrast, stakeholder representatives spoke about the positive contribution that workshops associated with the Program provided, as they created an opportunity for landholders to get together. In addition, interview respondents spoke about how a number of relationships were formed or strengthened as a direct consequence of the Program. These included relationships between individuals (e.g. neighbours helping neighbours); between individuals and organisations and landholders (e.g. landholders and NRM bodies); and between organisations (e.g. NRM bodies and mental health service providers, agricultural industry groups, local government, state and federal government). As a consequence, there was a call for more social aspects to be incorporated into this Program, and similar disaster related initiatives, in the future.

Contribution to ongoing resilience

The respondents gave varied answers when asked about whether the Program contributed to improving landholders’ ongoing resilience to future cyclone and flood events. In some cases the funding was deliberately used to improve the property and increase its resilience to future natural disasters. However in other situations, it appeared that the Program funding was used to restore infrastructure to exactly as it was, prior to Cyclone Oswald. Nevertheless, there was a general acknowledgement that a lot more needed to be done to improve resilience, whether it is through immediate investment in on-ground activities, or a longer-term focus on improving risk management in rural communities.

Feedback regarding Program administration

Whilst it was not the main focus of this study, several respondents gave detailed feedback regarding administrative aspects of the Program. These have been categorised into: delivery; eligibility criteria; timeliness and timeframes; cost effectiveness; and final outcome. Results from the online survey were, for the most part overwhelming positive, regarding all aspects of the Program, including the administration. In contrast, several criticisms were raised in the telephone interviews, particularly by non-landholders, presumably because the open ended format of the telephone interview questions enabled respondents to provide more feedback about the program, from their perspectives. This suggests that in some cases landholders’ perspectives about the Program were somewhat different to those of non-landholders (or stakeholder representatives), in particular the regional NRM bodies.

Upon interviewing, it became apparent that not all of the landholder contacts provided by the regional NRM bodies had actually participated in the Program. It should also be noted that a few of the landholders who were interviewed for this study appeared to be confused, or indicated that it was just too long ago to remember, about aspects of both Cyclone Oswald itself, and the specific details of the Program. It was also thought that in some cases, the Program was mistaken with Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority’s (QRAA) Special Disaster Assistance - Primary producer grants. This should be taken into account when delivering this Program, or similar disaster initiatives, in the future.

Several recommendations were suggested. Most are direct contributions from the research participants themselves (i.e. the respondents). Others were devised by the research team, or identified in relevant literature as being appropriate solutions to the issues that arose in this study. These recommendations are broadly grouped into the following categories:

Establish framework and develop guidelines prior to an event, where possible

Improve administrative aspects of the Program

Page | 3


Increase communication and promotion of the Program Improve equity by expanding the eligibility criteria and project completion timelines Provide the money earlier and increase the variety of funding arrangements Improve data collection for reporting, auditing and long-term monitoring

Foster social activities and develop skills to support wellbeing

Collaborate with related service providers and initiatives

Support natural disaster planning and knowledge of natural resource management for long term resilience

This study will contribute to existing knowledge of the effectiveness of agricultural and natural resource management disaster recovery funding in Queensland.


Contents

Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Background 7

1.2 Study aim and objectives 8

2 Methodology............................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Focus Group 9

2.2 Online Survey 9

2.3 Telephone Interviews 10

3 Results - Online Survey ........................................................................................................ 11

3.1 What best describes you, or your organisation, in relation to the Program? 11

3.2 Did you receive funding or assistance through the Program? 12

3.3 Which regional NRM body did you receive funding and/or assistance from, for the Program? 13

3.4 Which regional NRM body area(s) are most relevant to you, or your role? 14

3.5 What types of activities did you receive funding and/or assistance for, through the Program? 16

3.6 Approximately how much funding did you receive through the Program? 17

3.7 Financial and physical impact of the Program on landholders 18

3.8 Personal impact of the Program on landholders 26

3.9 Program administration 29

3.10 Impact of the Program on the broader community 36

4 Results - Focus Group and Telephone Interviews.............................................................. 42

4.1 Overall a successful Program, however delays and confusion 42

4.2 Contribution to agricultural production 46

4.3 Contribution to riparian restoration 51

4.4 Impact on participating landholders 53

4.5 Contribution to broader economy 59

4.6 Contribution to broader society 61

4.7 Contribution to ongoing resilience 65

4.8 Feedback regarding the Program administration 69

4.8.1 Delivery 69

4.8.2 Eligibility criteria 72

Page | 5


4.8.3 Timeliness and timeframes 75

4.8.4 Cost effectiveness 80

4.8.5 Final outcome 82

5 Comparison of survey and interview results....................................................................... 84

5.1 Overall a successful Program 84

5.2 Contribution to agricultural production 85

5.3 Contribution to riparian restoration 85

5.4 Personal impact on landholders 86

5.5 Contribution to broader economy 87

5.6 Contribution to broader society 87

5.7 Contribution to ongoing resilience 88

5.8 Feedback regarding the Program administration 88

5.8.1 Delivery 88

5.8.2 Eligibility criteria 89

5.8.3 Timeliness and timeframes 89

5.8.4 Cost effectiveness 90

5.8.5 Final outcome 90

6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 91

6.1 Establish institutional arrangements and develop guidelines prior to a disaster, where possible 91

6.2 Improve administrative aspects of the Program 91

6.2.1 Increase communication and promotion of the Program 91

6.2.2 Improve equity by expanding the eligibility criteria and extending the completion timeframes 91

6.2.3 Provide the money earlier and increase the variety of funding arrangements 92

6.2.4 Improve data collection for reporting, auditing and long-term monitoring 93


1 Introduction

1.1 Background

On the 22-29th January 2013, Category 1 ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald spread over parts of Queensland and New South Wales causing severe storms, flooding and tornadoes. It had a particularly disastrous effect on Queensland.

Under the joint Australian Government-State Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA), the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), in combination with the Commonwealth Government, delivered $15 million in short and medium term projects to those primary producing areas in Queensland that were most heavily impacted by ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald. The money was administered through the Ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald on-farm productivity and riparian recovery program (henceforth referred to as “the Program”).

The objective of the Program was to provide funding and technical assistance for on-ground activities to help rural farming communities to restore enterprise productivity and implement environmental recovery initiatives in the hardest hit farming communities.

Activities that were eligible for funding through the on-farm component related to:

the removal of on-farm debris

infrastructure restoration, including repair and/or replacement of fences and farm roads

crop re-establishment, land reconfiguration, soil conservation, and water management.

Environmental recovery measures that received funding included:

improved mapping

the removal of excess debris from watercourses

gully and stream-bank stabilisation, soil conservation

riparian rehabilitation

weed control

Under the Program, five regional NRM bodies undertook five ‘Urgent/Critical’ projects and 19 ‘Priority’ projects (including sub-projects). The regional NRM bodies were the: Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA); Burnett Mary Regional Group (BMRG); Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QMDC); Condamine Alliance (CA) and South-East Queensland Catchments (SEQC) group. Two ‘Other’ projects were undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

The focus of this study is on those projects that were delivered through the five regional NRM bodies mentioned above.

The Program ran from April 2013 until July 2015.

Page | 7


1.2 Study aim and objectives

This study is part of a broader DNRM evaluation of the Ex-tropical cyclone Oswald on-farm productivity and riparian recovery program (the “Program”).

Specifically, this study sought to answer the key question:

Has the Program funding assisted landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without the funding?

In order to fully examine this question, the following sub-questions were asked regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the Program:

Have the projects obtained the desired outcome – were they appropriate to address the issue?

Were the projects delivered on time?

Were the projects delivered in a cost effective manner?

Were the participants happy with the delivery and final outcome of the projects?

Were there additional flow-on effects to the broader community from the investment (e.g. small business, neighbours)?*

What was the impact of the Program on participants’ health and well-being?

* Please note this question was asked only of the funding recipients (i.e. the landholders).

In addition, at the request of DNRM, the following secondary Program questions concerning the individual effects, and the broader economic and social contributions of the Program, were asked:

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to the economic recovery of the local community? If so, how?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to the health and condition of the local community? If so, how?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to the on-going resilience of the local community? If so, how?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to community safety and amenity, as a result of disaster-related debris on land and water being mitigated? If so, how?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to improving water quality, and the health and stability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems? If so, how?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to reducing the flood impacts on vital public infrastructure, such as sewage and water treatment? If so, how?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to enhancing the resilience of farms and stream banks in the affected areas, to the impacts of future flood events?

In your opinion, to what extent will projects funded by the Program prevent further damage, or erosion, on land?

In your opinion, did the Program contribute to ensuring that excess debris, resulting from flooding, has been used beneficially?

This study will contribute to the Queensland government’s knowledge of the effectiveness of agricultural and natural resource management disaster recovery funding in Queensland.


2 Methodology

This study used a mixed methodology research approach, comprising qualitative focus group discussion, semi-structured open-ended telephone interviews, and a quantitative online survey.

2.1 Focus Group

A focus group approach was initially chosen as it is an effective method for quickly gaining insights into participants’ shared and divergent attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions to an issue or event (in this case the Ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald On-farm Productivity and Riparian Recovery Program), by engendering both debate and consensus building.

Seven focus group sessions, comprising 5 landholder sessions (one for each regional NRM area) and 2 regional coordination committee sessions (one for each committee) were planned for August 2015.

The objective of the focus groups was to determine whether funding and activities through the Program assisted landholders to return to agricultural production earlier than would have been possible without it. In addition, it sought to understand whether the Program had an influence on the local community’s environmental, economic, and social recovery, and ongoing resilience to natural disasters.

The landholder and stakeholder contacts were supplied by the regional NRM bodies. Initially it was expected that the focus group participants would be invited by email only. However upon commencement of the study it became apparent that many of the email addresses that were supplied were invalid. Consequently, landholders whose emails bounced back were invited by postal mail as well.

The first (and only) landholder focus group was held on Thursday 6th August in Gatton. Despite up to 10 landholders indicating they would be present at this focus group, it was very poorly attended, with only 3 properties represented.

In spite of the research team’s best efforts, which also included calling nearly all of the contacts provided, they were unable to recruit enough landholders to attend the focus groups for the other regions. There did not appear to be a lot of interest in attending the focus group, in particular, the cost and distance to travel (rather than topic) seemed to be the issue, despite invited landholders being offered a $75 voucher, as an inducement for their attendance.

After further discussion, the research team recommended that landholders be consulted via telephone interviews instead of focus groups. As there was only one focus group, to avoid duplication, the focus group and telephone interview results have been amalgamated in section 4.

2.2 Online Survey

An on-line survey was also conducted. The survey comprised 10 questions. Initial questions were designed to gauge the respondents’ levels of participation in the Program, as subsequent questions probed for specific information about their individual experiences of the Program, if relevant. The final three questions were then open to all respondents, to provide feedback regarding their perspectives on the administrative aspects of the Program, as well as the contributions of the Program to the broader community.

The question design differed in nature, with some involving a Likert-type scale which used a five point rating range that has been shown to effectively measure the direction and intensity of

Page | 9


responses. Others were simple multiple choice style questions, while participants were also offered the chance to give feedback via open-ended questions.

The survey was conducted during October 2015 using the online survey tool, Survey Monkey. In order to maximise the response rate, a modified Dillman et. al. (2014) method was used, involving an email invitation sent on Day 1 and three email reminders, sent on Day 4, Day 11, and Day 28.

The survey was completed by 108 respondents and achieved a response rate of 35.64%. While Survey Monkey automatically generates a range of reports and data outputs, some additional quantitative analysis was required using Excel. Some qualitative analysis of the open questions was also required to sort and where appropriate combine qualitative responses. A descriptive (percentage) analysis was used to present the results for each question. No inferential statistics have been carried out.

2.3 Telephone Interviews

A total of 43 confidential telephone interviews were conducted, comprising 22 landholders (i.e. 5 landholders from each region, except SEQC) and 18 stakeholder representatives – signifying the five regional NRM bodies, RCC members, state government, industry groups, consultants and contractors across the different regions. One regional NRM body representative failed to participate in an interview after initialling agreeing to.

These telephone interviews were conducted between August and September 2015. A semi-structured question format was selected to allow for follow-up prompts to encourage a deeper exploration of topics raised. Using this format, interviews lasted between 15mins – 1.5 hours (with an average of 45 mins) and were recorded by Dictaphone and transcribed professionally, with additional notes and memos being hand written by the researcher, throughout the exchange.

Data analysis employed both deductive and inductive methods, with the initial data coding based on the themes arising from the preliminary review (deductive), but also allowing for any alterations, or additions to these themes, using a grounded theory approach (inductive). Data analysis and coding was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Participants were sourced from the contact lists that were provided by the regional NRM bodies. In addition, a ‘snowballing’ technique, where interviewees recommend further people for involvement based on their ability to provide further insights (Miles and Huberman, 1994), was used to identify other landholders and stakeholder representatives who might be suitable and agree to be interviewed.

It should be noted that many landholders clearly did not want to be interviewed for this study. Several arranged interview times and then were not available at those times and did not call back, despite several messages being left on their phone by the researcher. This may reflect an over consultation with landholders in general. It may be prudent to consider using incentives in the future.


3 Results - Online Survey

The following presents and briefly describes the online survey results. The analysis has been performed at a single question level; hence the following reports the findings for each question.

3.1 What best describes you, or your organisation, in relation to the Program?

The intent of the first survey question was to categorise all respondents (n=108), into agricultural landholders, or a variety of other groups. Given that the Program funding was targeted at assisting agricultural producers to recover from Cyclone Oswald, it is not surprising that 59% (n=64) of the respondents identified as landholders whose land was mainly used for agricultural production, with 5% (n=5) identifying as landholders whose land was NOT primarily used for agricultural production (Table 1). This means that the vast majority (93%, n=64 of a total of 69) of landholders who participated in the survey identified themselves as mainly using their land for agricultural production (Figure 1).

The next highest group represented in the survey were regional NRM bodies at 15% of the respondents (n=16). Consultants/contractors (7%, n=8), Queensland government agency representatives (6%, n=7), representatives from Landcare or catchment management groups (4%, n=4), agricultural industry group representatives (2%, n=2), and local government representatives (2%, n=2) made up the remainder of the respondents.

As non-participants in the Program (for example, Program administrators), the responses of all sectors other than landholders (whether primarily agricultural producers or not) were focused on the administration of the Program and its contribution to the wider community (questions 9, 10, and 11), NOT on their own experiences accessing funds.

Table 1: What best describes you, or your organisation, in relation to the Program?

Answer Choices Responses

Landholder whose land is mainly used for agricultural production 59% 64

Landholder whose land is NOT mainly used for agricultural production 5% 5

Regional natural resource management (NRM) body 15% 16

Landcare or catchment management group 4% 4

Consultant or contractor (e.g. agronomist, irrigation specialist, earthworks operator)

7% 8

Agricultural industry group 2% 2

Local government agency 2% 2

Queensland government agency 6% 7

Total 100% 108

Page | 11


Figure 1: What best describes you, or your organisation, in relation to the Program?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

Participant 'type'

Q1. What best describes you or your organisation in relation to the program?

3.2 Did you receive funding or assistance through the Program?

This question was designed to capture whether landholder respondents (those who had identified as a landholder in Question 1, n=69) actually received funding. 87% (n=60) of these landholder respondents had received funding through the Program, while 13% (n=9) had not (Table 2, Figure 2). These 9 respondents were then excluded from the remainder of the questions targeted at funding recipients only. It is unclear how these landholder details were included in the participant list provided by the regional NRM bodies, as for the most part, they appeared to have little familiarity with the Program. Certainly, comments provided in a later question indicate that they did not know of the Program.

Table 2: Did you receive funding or assistance through the Program?


Yes 87% 60

No 13% 9

Total 100% 69


Figure 2: Did you receive funding or assistance through the Program? N

um

be

r o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No

Q2 Did you receive funding or assistance through the program?

Yes

3.3 Which regional NRM body did you receive funding and/or assistance from, for the Program?

This question was designed to identify which regional NRM bodies provided funding to the respondents and was asked only of those respondents who received funding (n=60). More respondents received their funding from Burnett Mary Regional Group (BMRG) than any other group (27%, n=16), however Condamine Alliance (CA), Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) and South East Queensland Catchments (SEQC) were not far behind, all contributing 22% (n=13) of the respondents (Table 3, Figure 3). Only 8% (n=5) of the respondents drew their funding from the Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QMDC).

Table 3: Which regional NRM body did you receive funding and/or assistance from,

for the Program?


Burnett Mary Regional Group (BMRG) 27% 16

Condamine Alliance (CA) 22% 13

Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) 22% 13

Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QMDC) 8% 5

South East Queensland Catchments (SEQC) 22% 13

Total 100% 60

Page | 13


Figure 3: Which regional NRM body did you receive funding and/or assistance from,

for the Program?

Q3 Which regional NRm body did you receive funding and/or assistance from, for the

program?

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

QMDC SEQC BMRG CA FBA

Regional NRM body

3.4 Which regional NRM body area(s) are most relevant to you, or your role?

This question was asked only of those respondents who had NOT identified as landholders in the first question. As such, the total possible respondents was 39, made up of representatives from regional NRM bodies, Landcare or catchment management groups, consultant or contractors, agricultural industry groups, or local or Queensland government agencies.

While 52 total responses were given to this question, this was because some respondents identified several regional NRM bodies as relevant to them. Of the 52 responses, 38% (n=20) identified BMRG as the most relevant regional NRM body to them. CA, FBA and SEQ were all identified at similar rates (17, 17, and 15% respectively), with QMDC identified by 10% (n=5) of the respondents as the most relevant regional NRM body to them (Table 4, Figure 4).


Table 4: Which regional NRM body area(s) are most relevant to you, or your role?


Burnett Mary Regional Group (BMRG) 38% 20

Condamine Alliance (CA) 17% 9

Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) 17% 9

Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QMDC) 10% 5

South East Queensland Catchments (SEQC) 15% 8

Other 2% 1

Total 100% 52

Total Respondents 39

Figure 4: Which regional NRM body area(s) are most relevant to you, or your role?

Q4 Which regional NRM body area(s) are most relevant to you, or your role?

25

20

15

10

5

0

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

BMRG CA FBA QMDC SEQC Other

Regional NRM body

Page | 15


3.5 What types of activities did you receive funding and/or assistance for, through the Program?

This question was asked of all landholder respondents who identified that they had received funding through the Program (n=60). It was intended to identify the activities that were funded through the Program, and offered 12 possible activities. Respondents could choose more than one of these. As such, while the total number of respondents for this question was 60, the total number of responses was 148.

Over 50% (n=32) of the respondents were funded for rehabilitation or stabilisation of stream banks or riparian areas. This also represented 22% of the activities that were funded. Funding for new fencing and repair or restoration of existing fencing, together made up 29% of the funded activities, with nearly half of the respondents (n=28) accessing funding for one or both of these activities. Soil conservation and land management assistance made up 14% of the funded activities, with a third of respondents (n=20) accessing funding for this purpose (Table 5, Figure 5).

Table 5: What types of activities did you receive funding and/or assistance for,

through the Program?


Weed and pest management assistance or control 6% 9

Rehabilitation or stabilisation of stream banks or riparian areas 22% 32

Soil conservation and land management assistance or works (incl. soil testing)

14% 20

Property or paddock reconfiguration for improved disaster resilience

8% 12

Disaster related debris or waste removal from paddocks 4% 6

Disaster related debris or waste removal from watercourses 2% 3

Repair or restoration of fencing 13% 19

Construction of new fencing 16% 23

Repair or restoration of farm related infrastructure (e.g. irrigation equipment)

8% 12

Repair or reconstruction of farm roads 6% 9

Flood and vegetation mapping 0% 0

Other 2% 3

Responses 100% 148

Total Respondents 60


Figure 5: What types of activities did you receive funding and/or assistance for,

through the Program?

Q5 What types of activities did you receive funding and/or assistance for, through the

Program?

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

Activity funded

3.6 Approximately how much funding did you receive through the Program?

Those landholders who had accessed funding through the Program (n=60) were asked to indicate how much they received within a range. Almost all respondents (n=54) accessed less than $30,000 of funding, with over a third (n=22) accessing less than $10,000. A very small minority (n=5) received above $40,000 of funding through this Program (Table 6, Figure 6).

Table 6: Approximately how much funding did you receive through the Program?


Less than $9,999 37% 22

$10,000 - $19,999 30% 18

$20,000 - $29,999 23% 14

$30,000 - $39,999 0% 0

$40,000 - $49,999 3% 2

Greater than $50,000 5% 3

Unsure 2% 1

Total 100% 60

Page | 17


Figure 6: Approximately how much funding did you receive through the Program?

0

5

10

15

20

25

Less than $9,999

$10,000 -$19,999

$20,000 -$29,999

$30,000 -$39,999

$40,000 -$49,999

Greater than $50,000

Unsure

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

Funding received

Q6 Approximately how much funding did you receive through the Program?

3.7 Financial and physical impact of the Program on landholders

Landholders who accessed funding through the Program (n=60) were asked to consider a range of statements, designed to help understand the degree to which the funding received through the Program had financially and physically impacted upon them and their enterprises (Table 7, Figure 7). In particular, the statements sought to identify whether the funding assisted them to recover from Cyclone Oswald, as well as help them to prepare for future events. They were also asked to reflect on whether the funding provided to them was used to employ local product or service providers. They were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with seven statements. Each of these will be briefly reported on below:

3.7.1 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program allowed me to do the activities that I wanted to do

The overwhelming majority of respondents (77%, n=46) when asked whether the funding received through the Program allowed them to do the activities they wanted to do, answered in the affirmative. Only 8% (n=5) disagreed with the statement. Of the 5 respondents that disagreed, they tended to make general comments about there not being enough funds, that the funds were distributed unevenly, or that the work they did achieve through the funding was undone by a later storm event for which there was no funding.

Interestingly, while there was a tendency for those who responded in the negative to this question to answer other questions negatively, several still responded positively to questions later in the survey regarding how participation in the Program made them feel, or in regards to the administration of the Program, and even in regards to the community benefits of the Program. This suggests that while they may not have achieved their stated goals, they still considered the Program worthwhile.


3.7.2 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program enabled me to get back on my feet faster

When asked whether the Program helped them to get back on their feet faster, the majority of respondents (68%, n=41) either agreed or strongly agreed, with just 8% (n=50) disagreeing with this statement. Not surprisingly, 3 of the respondents who disagreed with this statement also disagreed with the previous statement. They also had a higher tendency (than the previous statement) to respond positively for other questions, particularly around the administration and community benefit of the Program.

3.7.3 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program helped me to earn an income

Probably not surprisingly, when asked whether the funding received helped earn an income, the rate of agreement dropped to 45% (n=27), with 18% (n=11) disagreeing with the statement, and 23% (n=14) providing a neutral response. Probably also not surprisingly, over 50% of those that disagreed with this statement, had also disagreed with at least one of the previous two statements. Interestingly, one respondent who disagreed that they were able to do the activities they wanted, had agreed that it helped them to get back on their feet, as well as to earn an income. This again suggests that even those who did not necessarily achieve their planned outcomes may have still achieved some success.

3.7.4 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program supported me to prepare for future flood events

The respondents were also asked whether the assistance supported them to prepare for future flood events, with 58% (n=35) responding in the affirmative, 12% (n=7) in the negative and 18% neutrally (n=11). Not surprisingly, most (n=6) of the respondents who answered in the negative to this statement, had disagreed with at least one of the previous statements, although one respondent who disagreed had responded in strong agreement with the first two statements. This suggests that the experience of some was that the Program helped them to recover from this event, but not necessarily to build resilience for future events. This might raise important questions around Program impact, and whether assisting with recovery from disaster is enough in the absence of disaster preparedness outcomes.

3.7.5 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program strengthened my relationships with other landholders

This statement, asking respondents to agree or disagree with whether the funding strengthened relationships with other landholders, produced the least consistent results when compared to the other statements in this question. While all of the other statements had the biggest proportion of responses in the affirmative (albeit to smaller or larger degrees), this was the only statement where the highest response to the question, was a neutral response (neither agree nor disagree) (48%, n=29). 22% (n=13) agreed with the statement, while 15% (n=9) disagreed. Interestingly, of those that agreed, with the statement, the majority received funding on the lower end of the scale, being less than $20,000, and quite a few received less than $10,000. This suggests that lower funding might have encouraged the need for collaboration across properties.

Probably not surprisingly, those landholders that agreed with this statement, almost entirely also agreed with the later statements about the Program’s contribution to the broader community, suggesting a consistent theme for some Program participants of recognising wider benefits.

3.7.6 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program assisted me to purchase local materials and supplies

Page | 19


When asked whether the funding assisted the recipients to purchase local materials, 65% (n=39) agreed, while just 8% (n=5) disagreed. Of those that disagreed, all either disagreed with the previous statements, or returned a nil or neutral response, suggesting that the impact of the Program for these participants was low. However, most of these respondents provided affirmative responses to the later community impact statements, suggesting that while their own experience might not have been hugely beneficial, that they did see broader community benefits of the Program.

3.7.7 The funding and/or assistance I received through the Program assisted me to employ local service providers

When asked whether the funding assisted them to employ local service providers, a small majority (52%, n=31) responded positively, with a reasonably large neutral response of 22% (n=13). There was no distinguishable pattern in regards to what the funding was used for among those respondents who disagreed with this statement, although there were a slight preference towards soil conservation and bank stabilisation. Certainly some activities would lend themselves more to local providers. Three of the six respondents who disagreed, were from the Condamine Alliance, with three other groups (FBA, BMRG, SEQC) making up the rest of the respondents.


Table 7: Financial and physical impact of the Program on landholders

Agree/Strongly Agree

neither agree nor disagree

Disagree/Strongly disagree

Unanswered (DELIBERATELY?)

SKIPPED Q

Unsure Total respondents

Actual % Actual % Actual % Actual % Actual %

allowed me to do the activities that I wanted to do

46 77% 5 8% 5 8% 4 7% 0 0% 60

enabled me to get back on my feet faster

41 68% 7 12% 5 8% 7 12% 0 0% 60

helped me to earn an income

27 45% 14 23% 11 18% 8 13% 0 0% 60

supported me to prepare for future flood events

35 58% 11 18% 7 12% 7 12% 0 0% 60

strengthened my relationships with other landholders

13 22% 29 48% 9 15% 9 15% 0 0% 60

assisted me to purchase local materials and supplies

39 65% 8 13% 5 8% 8 13% 0 0% 60

assisted me to employ local service providers

31 52% 13 22% 6 10% 9 15% 1 2% 60

50


Figure 7: Financial and physical impact of the Program on landholders

Q7. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? "The funding and or assistance I received through the program:"

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Allowed me to do the Enabled me to get Helped me to earn an Supported me to Strengthened my Assisted me to Assisted me to employ

activities that I wanted back on my feet faster income prepare for future relationships with purchase local local service providers to do flood events other landholders materials and supplies

Agree - Strongly Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Disagree - Strongly Disagree Unsure Unanswered

Page | 25


3.8 Personal impact of the Program on landholders

Landholders who accessed funding through the Program (n=60) were asked to consider a range of statements, designed to understand how the funding received through the Program made them feel (Table 8, Figure 8). They were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with these statements. Each of these will be briefly reported on below.

3.8.1 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel happier

An overwhelming majority of respondents (82%, n=49) reported that participation in the Program made them feel happier, with just 2 respondents (3%) answering in the negative. Both of these respondents accessed less than $10,000, so perhaps the impact of the Program was low for this reason.

However, it is difficult to interpret the negative responses, as someone who disagreed or strongly disagreed with these statements could either be feeling the opposite emotion (i.e. unhappy) or are simply stating that it did not make them feel happy. In reality, these respondents might simply feel neutral. Certainly for one of the respondents who strongly disagreed with this statement, they had answered in the negative (or not answered at all) for all of the questions regarding their own experiences with the Program. However, very interestingly, this same respondent answered in the strong affirmative to the later statements (question 10) regarding the impact of the Program on the community, strongly suggesting that while the impact of the Program for them was low, they did see it as having wider community benefits.

3.8.2 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel safer

When asked whether participation in the Program had made respondents feel safer, the largest response was neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure (41%, n=25). However, this was closely matched by a similar proportion (37%, n=22) who either agreed or strongly agreed that participation had made them feel safer. Five respondents (8%) disagreed with the statement. Of those that disagreed, a couple had a tendency towards answering negatively across all questions, but for others there was no clear pattern. As for the previous question, it is difficult to interpret the negative responses. It is unlikely that participation made them feel unsafe, and more likely that it simply did not engender feelings of safety. Certainly, since, the majority of respondents responded neutrally, it can probably be concluded that while participation had not made participants feel safer, it likely did not make them feel unsafe.

3.8.3 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel supported

The overwhelming majority of respondents when asked if participation in the Program made them feel supported, answered in the affirmative (92%, n=55). The neutral response was just 3% (n=2) and only one respondent (2%) actually disagreed with the statement. This one respondent raised issues with equity in the distribution of funds, had accessed under $10,000, and answered most questions negatively. This suggests that their unhappiness may stem from the amount of funds they received. Certainly, the most obvious conclusion from the data is that participation in programs such as this can have a significant impact on how positive an individual feels about their recovery and whether they are supported through that, after disasters.

3.8.4 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel grateful

Again, an overwhelming majority of respondents (85%, n=51) answered positively when asked if participation in the Program made them feel grateful, with just 2 respondents (3%) answering negatively. Both of these respondents accessed less than $10,000, and both consistently answered negatively across most questions. However, one of the negative responders did answer the statements around community benefits (Q10) positively, suggesting again, that while their own


experience was at best inconsequential, they did recognise value for others. As for previous questions, it is difficult to confidently interpret the negative responses as they may have been intending to convey that they feel ungrateful, but more likely they simply do not feel grateful.

3.8.5 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel relieved

When asked whether participation in the Program made them feel relieved, a solid majority (67%, n=40) agreed or strongly agreed. Probably more interestingly, was the large number (20%, n=12) who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, as only one respondent actively disagreed. It is possible that feelings of relief were experienced at the time of receiving the funds but have not been sustained. This is not unusual as relief tends to be an immediate emotion when support is offered post-event, and many people will shift towards other emotions, such as support and gratitude, as they move temporally away from the event. This fits with the other results, with those emotions rating much higher.

3.8.6 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel better prepared

Interestingly, when compared to the other emotions, feeling better prepared was not rated as highly, with 38% (n=63) agreeing with this statement, and 23% (n=14) providing a neutral (neither agree nor disagree) with this statement. Five respondents (8%) had disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Given that disaster preparedness was a goal of the Program, this could be considered a disappointing result. While two of the respondents who answered negatively were consistently negative with the other emotions experienced, three were not, answering positively to the other emotions. It is difficult to draw conclusions, especially as the relative number is still small, but it raises questions around whether a Program is still worthwhile if preparedness is not achieved, if it assists emotional and mental recovery.

3.8.7 As a result of participating in the Program, I feel unchanged

The way that this question was asked, it could be predicted – if respondents were not answering the questions in a patterned manner – that disagreement with this statement would be high, as such an overwhelming majority of respondents had answered positively to the range of emotions explored already. The result appears somewhat consistent with this hypothesis, with 42% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement. However, the number of respondents who neither agreed or disagreed with the statement or were unsure (39%, n=23), is surprising. Given that most of the respondents who responded neutrally, had already reported feeling at least one (if not all) of the emotions already explored, it is expected that they might consider themselves changed by the Program. However, the interpretation of “unchanged” could vary enormously, making it difficult to assume that someone feels changed because they feel happier or more relieved for example.

Certainly the one person who agreed with the statement had expressed positive responses to the other statements suggesting that they might have been answering in a patterned manner (that is, wanting to convey satisfaction with the Program and not paying strict attention to the specifics of the question). However, it is also quite possible that they felt happier, safer, supported, grateful, relieved and better prepared, without actually feeling changed. Similarly, while the respondents who had consistently answered negatively to the other emotions also answered negatively to this feeling, suggesting they were following a pattern response, it is equally as likely that their feelings towards the Program are more complex; that is, that while it might not have engendered positive emotions, the Program had still impacted them. It is impossible to draw clear conclusions. Overall, the data suggests that participation in such programs can play a significant role in generating feelings of happiness, safety, support, gratitude and even relief in a community affected by disaster. So, while farm recovery was the primary goal of the Program, we cannot discount the benefits that can be achieved from such Programs to mental and emotional health.

Page | 27


Table 8: Personal impact of the Program on landholders

As a result of

participating in the

Program, I feel:


Neither agree nor disagree


Unanswered Unsure

Actual % Actu al

% Actual % Actual % Actual %

Happier 49 82% 6 10% 2 3% 3 5% 0 0%

Safer 22 37% 23 38% 5 8% 8 13% 2 3%

Supported 55 92% 2 3% 1 2% 2 3% 0 0%

Grateful 51 85% 4 7% 2 3% 3 5% 0 0%

Relieved 40 67% 12 20% 1 2% 6 10% 1 2%

Better prepared

38 63% 14 23% 5 8% 3 5% 0 0%

Unchanged 1 2% 19 32% 25 42% 11 18% 4 7%

Figure 8: Personal impact of the Program on landholders

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

Q8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"As a result of participating in the program, I feel:"

Agree - Strongly Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Disagree - Strongly Disagree

Unsure

Unanswered


3.9 Program administration

All survey respondents (n=104) were asked to consider a range of statements, designed to understand perceptions about the administrative requirements of the Program (Table 9, Figure 9). They were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with these statements. Each of these will be briefly reported on below; however, overall, the response to these statements was quite positive.

3.9.1 Eligibility criteria for projects were clear enough

The majority of respondents (65%, n=68), believed that the eligibility criteria were clear for projects. Twenty percent (n=20) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 12% (n=12) disagreed that eligibility criteria were clear.

What is interesting is the nature of the respondents who answered this statement negatively, disagreeing that the eligibility criteria were clear. Of the 12 respondents, 7 of them represented consultants, Queensland government agencies, industry groups or regional NRM bodies. Four of these respondents represented Queensland government agencies, even though they only represented 6% of the respondents in total. Only 5 of the respondents, who thought eligibility criteria were not clear, were landholders. This suggests that the targets of the Program were more comfortable with the eligibility criteria than perhaps the administrators imagined.

One industry representative provided an additional comment:

“Eligibility criteria were not resolved quickly so subsequent identification of suitable projects was not timely” (industry group representative).

Additionally, of those landholders who did not consider the eligibility criteria to be clear enough, 3 of them accessed less than $10,000, one accessed between $10-20,000 and one did not access funding at all.

3.9.2 Eligibility criteria for projects were wide-ranging enough

The majority of respondents (61%, n=63) also believe that the eligibility criteria for funding were wide-ranging enough. Twenty five percent (n=26) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 13% (n=13) disagreed that eligibility criteria were wide ranging enough.

Interestingly, only 2 of the respondents who had disagreed with the previous statement pertaining to whether the eligibility criteria was clear enough, also disagreed with this statement. Unlike the previous statement, the majority of the respondents who disagreed with this statement (9 out of the total of 13) were landholders who participated in the Program, suggesting that there was a genuine on-ground concern that the Program did not cover enough activities. The regional NRM group, BMRG were possibly slightly over-represented in those respondents who disagreed with this statement, with 5 of the 13 respondents who disagreed, coming from the BMRG. While SEQC had the next highest number of respondents in disagreement (n=3), one of these was a regional NRM body representative.

3.9.3 Paperwork and reporting requirements were fair

An even larger majority of respondents (72%, n=75) believe that the paperwork and reporting requirements of the Program were fair. Six percent (n=6) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 13% (n=13) disagreed that the reporting and paperwork requirements were fair. This highly positive result is interesting as excessive paperwork and reporting is often one of the most criticised features of any funding Program.

Page | 29


Again, the interesting findings to emerge from the results lies in those that disagree with the statement. Of the 13 respondents who disagreed, 6 of them were regional NRM body representatives. Even the neutral and unsure responders tended not to be landholder representatives, with regional NRM bodies (n=2), Queensland Government agency representatives (n=1) and consultants (n=2) making up 5 of the 12 respondents who provided a neutral or unsure response. Given that regional NRM bodies for example represented only 16 % of the respondents, Queensland Government agency representatives only 6% and consultants only 7% of the respondents, this is a clear over-representation of these sectors. It suggests that either the regional NRM bodies as the deliverers of the Program, felt burdened by the paperwork, or that the non-landholder respondents over-estimated the degree to which the landholder participants felt burdened.

Certainly, with only 7 of the possible 69 landholder respondents disagreeing with the statement, and only 7 landholders providing a neutral or unsure response (and 5 of these had not even participated in the Program), it would strongly suggest that paperwork and reporting requirements were NOT considered excessive by the recipients of the funding.

3.9.4 Funding was provided in a timely matter

The majority of respondents (63%, n=66) also believe that the Program funding was provided in a timely manner. Seventeen percent (n=17) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 17% (n=18) disagreed that funding was provided in a timely manner.

As for the previous statement, the majority of respondents who disagreed with the statement that funding was provided in a timely manner were NOT landholders who participated in the Program. Of the 18 respondents who disagreed, only 5 were landholders, with the remainder made up of regional NRM bodies (n=5), and representatives from Queensland Government agencies (n=4), Landcare (n=2), consultants (n=1) and industry (n=1). Even of those who responded neutrally or were unsure (n=16), 10 of these were landholders, but half of them did not actually participate in the Program so not surprisingly they held no opinion on the timeliness of funding. This strongly suggests that the funding recipients were satisfied that funding was delivered in a timely manner. This does not mean that improvements could not have been made. As one landholder, who was the recipient of over $50,000, and who answered this statement with a neutral response, said:

“Funding was wonderful and very appreciated n I fully understand the money spent needs to be accounted for however if u really want to help farmers recover making the process quicker is critical. Most farmers surrounding us didn't bother applying this flood as they just don't have the time to apply due to the amount of proof required also mindful of internet connections dropping in n out depression, stress, anxiety mixed in. I think u need your field officers to come around like insurance n say yes/no more than $25000 damage save all photos etc”.

Additionally, one regional NRM body representative delivered a scathing assessment in the comments section of the survey regarding the timeliness of funding:

“… This one of the worst programs I have ever seen. 9 months after the flood we received the funding”.

Another regional NRM body representative recommended “making assistance available much much sooner”.

A Landcare representative also commented that:

“Making funding available earlier or making funding retrospective. The funding came too late for most enterprises who relied on the land (especially fencing) for their business”.


Another regional NRM body representative, who was importantly in strong support of the Program as evidenced by their answers across the survey, reflected that:

“Repair of the natural system should be seen in the same light as emergency planning for people. Needs to be part of the first response considerations. We were able to react quicker than some government agencies.”

3.9.5 Contract timelines were flexible enough

Given the positive response to the previous statement, it is not surprising that the majority of respondents (73%, n=76) also believe that the contract timelines were flexible enough. Eighteen percent (n=18) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while only 7% (n=7) disagreed that the contract timelines were flexible enough.

Again, of the 7 respondents who disagreed with this statement, the non-landholder groups were significantly over-represented with representatives from Landcare (n=2), a local government agency (n=1), Industry (n=1) and regional NRM bodies (n=1) making up the bulk of those in disagreement, and only two landholders disagreeing that the contract timelines were flexible enough. These same two landholders had responded neutrally to the previous question regarding timeliness of the funding. Even those who responded neutrally or were unsure were largely made up of other groups, with only 5 of the 18 respondents in this category actually representing participants in the Program.

One regional NRM body representative did comment that there was:

“Insufficient time (2 years) for such extensive damage and economic hardship. Insufficient time to engage the community effectively and address priorities”.

However, overall, it can be concluded that the vast majority of Program participants considered the contract timelines to be flexible enough.

3.9.6 The Program represented good value for money

The majority of respondents (75%, n=78) believed that the Program represented good value for money. Eighteen percent (n=19) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 5% (n=5) disagreed that the Program offered good value for money.

Of those that disagreed (n=5), only two were landholders and both received less than $10,000. A regional NRM body representative, a Queensland Government agency representative and an industry representative made up the other 3 who disagreed about value for money. The largest proportion of those who were neutral or unsure (n=19), were made up of landholders (n=9), with Queensland Government agency representatives (n=4) the next largest group who were neutral or unsure about the value for money aspect of the Program. Overall, it appears that the vast majority of landholders, and most representatives of other sectors, did consider the Program good value for money.

3.9.7 The Program was well organised

A similarly positive response can be reported for the next statement with the majority of respondents (76%, n=79) considering that the Program was well organised. Sixteen percent (n=16) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 7% (n=7) disagreed that the Program was well organised.

Page | 31


Of those that disagreed, again most were not landholders, with just 3 of the 7 respondents who disagreed being landholders, with two of these receiving less than $10,000. The other respondents who disagreed were representatives from a regional NRM body, a Queensland government agency, a consultant, and an industry representative. Not surprisingly a large number of those who had a neutral or unsure response (n=5) were landholders who had NOT participated in the Program.

Certainly, it appears that the vast majority of participants were satisfied with the organisation of the Program. This was reflected in the few open-ended responses provided by respondents:

“(Name removed – regional NRM body officer) was supportive and understanding. He helped me tremendously with this project” (landholder)

“At the start of the program the general administration was very difficult, however it got better towards the end” (regional NRM body)

“Always room for improvement but overall well managed/delivered for a targeted program” (regional NRM body)

“I thought the assistance program was quickly &well delivered and was happy and thankful for the assistance. It was well done and no real improvements I can think of” (landholder)

3.9.8 The Program was efficient

Interestingly given the positive response given to the previous statement, there was less support shown to whether the Program was efficient. However, the majority of respondents (67%, n=70) still agreed with this statement, with just 8% (n=8) disagreeing, and 21% (n=22) providing either a neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure response.

Those that disagreed were almost entirely the same individuals as those that disagreed with the previous statement, with the addition of another regional NRM body representative and a consultant, both of whom had agreed that the Program was well organised in the previous statement. Again not surprisingly, the respondents who were neutral or unsure largely overlapped with the previous statement.

One industry representative did provide the following comment:

“Eligibility criteria were not resolved quickly so subsequent identification of suitable projects was not timely”

3.9.9 The Program was effective

One of the highest positive responses for this question was applied to the statement of whether the Program was effective, with a high majority of respondents (81%, n=84) considering that the Program was effective. Fourteen percent (n=14) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 3% (n=3) disagreed that the Program was effective.

Of the 3 respondents who disagreed that the Program was effective, two were landholders and one was an industry representative. The comment provided by the industry representative was that:

“Natural disaster assistance for agricultural producers is best distributed by industry-related organisations. NRM Groups do not have strong links with agricultural producers and are better suited to distributing/managing natural disaster assistance for environmental projects/programs”.


3.9.10 The Program was worthwhile

The most positive response to any of the statements concerning Program administration was in regards to whether the Program was worthwhile, with an overwhelming majority of respondents (88%, n=92) considering that the Program was worthwhile. Seven percent (n=7) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 4% (n=3) disagreed that the Program was worthwhile. Of the three respondents who disagreed, one was a landholder who participated and received less than $10,000, one was an industry representative and one was a Queensland Government agency representative. Two of the three were the same respondents who disagreed with the previous statement.

One additional theme that emerged in the open-ended comments that sits outside of the issues explored in the statements above is that the scheme needed to be promoted more, with one landholder claiming: “We did not know of the program nor received any funding… The questions must be asked, Why didn't severely TC impacted farmers get to know of the program?... We suffered $700k damages, and had both State & Federal Ag Ministers on farm in the first week, and got a $25k grant! No one told us of this extra assistance”. Similarly, a consultant commented that the “Scheme needed better publicity”.

Overall, the respondents had overwhelmingly positive responses to these statements. A proportionally high percentage of the respondents who answered in the negative to these statements tended NOT to be landholders who participated in the Program, instead representing regional NRM bodies, Queensland Government agencies, and industry groups. This suggests that for the most part, the scheme was administratively highly successful for the funding recipients, and particularly that the Program was overwhelmingly considered good value for money, well organised, effective and worthwhile.

Page | 33


Table 9: Respondents perspectives about the Program administration


Neither agree nor disagree


Unsure Unanswered Total respondents


Eligibility criteria for projects were clear enough

68 65% 12 12% 12 12% 8 8% 4 4% 104

Eligibility criteria for projects were wide-ranging enough

63 61% 18 17% 13 13% 8 8% 2 2% 104

Paperwork and reporting requirements were fair

75 72% 6 6% 13 13% 6 6% 4 4% 104

Funding was provided in a timely matter

66 63% 10 10% 18 17% 7 7% 3 3% 104

Contract timelines were flexible enough

76 73% 13 13% 7 7% 5 5% 3 3% 104

Represented good value for money 78 75% 14 13% 5 5% 5 5% 2 2% 104

Was well organised 79 76% 12 12% 7 7% 4 4% 2 2% 104

Was efficient 70 67% 17 16% 8 8% 5 5% 4 4% 104

Was effective 84 81% 10 10% 3 3% 4 4% 3 3% 104

Was worthwhile 92 88% 4 4% 3 3% 4 4% 1 1% 104


Figure 9: Respondents perspectives about the Program administration

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Eligibility criteria for

projects were clear enough

Eligibility criteria for

projects were wide-ranging

enough

Paperwork and reporting

requirements were fair

Funding was provided in a timely matter

Contract timelines were flexible enough

Represented good value for

money

Was well organised

Was efficient Was effective Was worthwhile

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

Q9. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements, regarding administration of the program?


Page | 35


3.10 Impact of the Program on the broader community

All survey respondents (n=104) were asked to consider a range of statements, designed to understand the contribution of the Program to the broader community. They were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with these statements (Table 10, Figure 10). Each of these will be briefly reported on below.

Overall, it is somewhat surprising that so many respondents responded so positively to these statements as community impact is less measurable than individual impact, and people do not always feel confident reflecting on broader impact. That so many were willing to support these statements, is testimony to how well – broadly speaking – the Program was received.

3.10.1 The Program contributed to the broader community by assisting landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner

A very high majority of respondents (81%, n=84) believe that the Program contributed to the broader community by assisting landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner. Eleven percent (n=11) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 7% (n=7) disagreed with the statement.

Of those respondents who disagreed with the statement, only 3 were landholders. One of these landholders did not participate in the Program, and the other two received relatively low funds (one less than $10,000, one between $10 and $20,000). The other respondents who disagreed were regional NRM body representatives, a Queensland Government agency representative, and an industry representative. Most of the respondents who returned a neutral or unsure response were landholders. Again, most received funding at the lower end of the spectrum. This may have influenced the impact that they perceived as occurring. However, there was also criticism of the way that the funds were used. One industry representative said:

“A significant percentage of the funding was used to engage specialists who provided "advice" to landholders, not "funding" to repair flood damaged properties and assist return to agricultural production”.

One regional NRM body representative reflected that “limited funds and time to address a major issue” impacted the degree to which the Program could influence recovery.

3.10.2 The Program contributed to the broader community by supporting the local economy (e.g. small businesses)

The majority of respondents (79%, n=82) believe that the Program contributed to the broader community by supporting the local economy (e.g. small businesses). Thirteen percent (n=31) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 5% (n=5) disagreed with the statement.

One criticism of the Program from an industry representative, was that:

“… some of the specialists were brought in on project related contracts, thus not employing or contracting locals”

However, most respondents did support this statement. It is possible that landholder respondents particularly, would have answered this statement reflecting their own expenditure; that is, if they spent the funding they received locally they could be more likely to consider that the local economy benefited from the Program. It is therefore interesting to reflect on the small number of landholder respondents who disagreed with the statement (n=1) and even the small number who provided a neutral or unsure response (n=4). All 5 of


these respondents received less than $10,000 funding, which again, might have influenced the impact they perceived from the Program.

Given the large number of funding recipients (64 of 69 landholders) who agreed that the Program contributed to the local economy, it suggests that many of the funding recipients did spend at least some of the funding they received locally.

3.10.3 The Program contributed to the broader community by enabling landholders and properties to cope with future cyclone and flood events

The majority of respondents (72%, n=75) believe that the Program contributed to the broader community by enabling landholders and properties to cope with future cyclone and flood events. Fourteen percent (n=14) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 11% (n=11) disagreed with the statement.

Given that one of the goals of the Program was to help build resilience, it is interesting that the number who disagreed with the statement is higher than the previous two statements (although only by a small margin). Importantly, the majority of respondents who disagreed with the statement were landholders who received funding, so it is important to reflect why they perceive that the funding did not help build disaster resilience. One contractor commented that:

“Some farms that I did repair work on needed 3 to 5 times the $25k to get anywhere near what they were before the flood. If plastic pipe was affordable a lot of future problems could be avoided by replacing supply-head ditches that are always across the flood flow with under-ground main. If you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you always got… Same repair all over again. Once water over tops a head ditch it removes large amounts of soil from the rota buck area and deposits it 80-120 metres down stream, then seems to settle down till the next head ditch. In saying this it is not possible to cater for these one in a hundred events with any degree of certainty”.

This was also reflected in feedback provided by one landholder, who implied that the funding was too small to make the difference that was needed:

“Need to be more extensive as financial burden after flood is huge & extends for many years after”.

This suggests that the funding may have been used to simply repair, rather than to put in place resilience measures. One Queensland Government agency representative commented:

“Don't just rebuild what was there but rather look hard at what is the best use for the flood affected country”,

While another contractor suggested:

“Don't treat them as once-off events. The whole program has to be regarded as a continuum of events and community members will need to be kept up to date, reminded, encouraged to think wider than the next bank payment”.

But importantly, the majority of respondents still supported the statement with one landholder commenting:

“[The Program] definitely benefits everyone long term. Protecting the little agriculture land we have left is critical; keeping the farmers on the farms even more critical for food security in future”.

Page | 37


3.10.4 The Program contributed to the broader community by enhancing the water quality, or the health and stability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems

The majority of respondents (64%, n=67) believe that the Program contributed to the broader community by enhancing the water quality, or the health and stability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Twenty-six percent (n=27) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while just 5% (n=5) disagreed with the statement.

Of the 5 that disagreed, 3 were landholders who received funding, while another was a consultant and another respondent was a Queensland Government agency representative. The high number of neutral or unsure responses, suggests that when landholders were not funded for works that would contribute to water quality outcomes, that they did not feel confident providing a response regarding the Program’s broader impact.

3.10.5 The Program contributed to the broader community by ensuring that excess debris, resulting from flooding, has been used beneficially

This was the only statement where support for the statement was low, with just 28% (n=29) agreeing that the Program contributed to the broader community by ensuring that excess debris, resulting from flooding, has been used beneficially. Fifty-six percent (n=59) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 10% (n=10) disagreed with the statement.

It is difficult to determine why this statement was largely unsupported, but it is likely that many respondents did not understand what the statement was implying. Further, many did not access the funding for removal of debris, so this may explain why there is such a low level of agreement with the statement. However, it is difficult to say this with any certainty.

3.10.6 The Program contributed to the broader community by helping to prevent further damage, or erosion, on land

The majority of respondents (80%, n=83) believe that the Program contributed to the broader community by helping to prevent further damage, or erosion, on land. Ten percent (n=10) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 9% (n=9) disagreed with the statement.

While a high majority of respondents agreed with the statement, a relatively small number provided a neutral or unsure response as compared to other statement results, suggesting that most respondents had definite feelings one way or the other. Of those that disagreed (n=9), 4 received funding. Two of these funding recipients received funding for erosion related activities.

3.10.7 The Program contributed to the broader community by improving the health and well-being of residents

There was not a majority opinion on this statement with an even 50% (n=52) believing that The Program contributed to the broader community by improving the health and well-being of residents. Thirty-eight percent (n=39) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 9% (n=9) disagreed with the statement.

While the percentage of respondents who agreed with this statement is much lower than some of the other statements concerning broader community impact, 50% still did believe that there was a broader benefit. As two landholders said:


“Programs to assist with recovery after these natural disasters is essential to help the community towards recovery by making people feel cared about as well as the practical financial assistance for recovery”.

“We sold every asset we own, lost our home… our safety all in one night, over $200000 loss each flood, we work not only for nothing for next 2 yrs but we take out loans to work - we actually pay for the privilege to work . Never been on the dole, never will but help is needed at these awful times”.

3.10.8 The Program contributed to the broader community by enhancing the social connections between individuals and organisations

There was a small majority of respondents (57%, n=59) who believed that the Program contributed to the broader community by enhancing the social connections between individuals and organisations. Thirty-four percent (n=35) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 6% (n=6) disagreed with the statement.

While it was only a small majority who agreed with the statement, more importantly only 6 respondents disagreed with the statement. Only two of those who disagreed were landholders who received funding and both received less than $10,000 and also tended towards negative responses through most of the survey. Presumably because their overall experience with the Program was not positive, it would be hard to imagine an increase in social connections resulting from the Program.

3.10.9 The Program contributed to the broader community by increasing the safety and amenity of the area (e.g. as a result of disaster-related debris on land and water being mitigated)

This statement was one of only two statements in Question 10 that did not have a majority of respondents in agreement with only 45% (n=47) believing that The Program contributed to the broader community by increasing the safety and amenity of the area (e.g. as a result of disaster-related debris on land and water being mitigated). 41% (n=42) were either neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, while 10% (n=10) disagreed with the statement.

However, given the number of respondents who were unsure or neutral, it is possible that if they didn’t use the funding provided through the Program to remove debris, then they might not have felt comfortable commenting on this statement. Given that only 10 respondents disagreed with the statement, it is unlikely that the Program was considered to have negatively impacted on safety and amenity.

Of the 10 respondents who disagreed with the statement, 6 of these were landholders who received funding through the Program. However, only 1 of these actually received funding for debris and waste removal (from both paddocks and water courses). As a recipient of one of the larger amounts offered through the Program, this landholder commented that the Program should:

“Spend some time and money in sensible prevention mitigation programs to watercourses subjected to severe flooding in high rainfall events; by removing excess vegetation from the stream channels that seriously impede the natural water flow causing alternate stream flows and enhanced flooding.”

Overall, the respondents felt positively towards the Program and its impact on the broader community, with some statements receiving an overwhelmingly positive response. Broadly, it can be concluded that the Program was received well, largely supported, and considered to have impacts across a range of specific and broad areas.

Page | 39


Table 10: Respondents perspectives about the impact of the Program on the broader community

The Program contributed to the broader community by:


Neither agree/Disagree

Disagree/ Strongly disagree

Unsure Unanswered Total respondents


assisting landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner

84 81% 9 9% 7 7% 2 2% 2 2% 104

supporting the local economy (e.g. small businesses)

82 79% 8 8% 5 5% 5 5% 4 4% 104

enabling landholders and properties to cope with future cyclone and flood events

75 72% 11 11% 11 11% 3 3% 4 4% 104

enhancing the water quality, or the health and stability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems

67 64% 18 17% 5 5% 9 9% 5 5% 104

ensuring that excess debris, resulting from flooding, has been used beneficially

29 28% 44 42% 10 10% 15 14% 6 6% 104

helping to prevent further damage, or erosion, on land

83 80% 7 7% 9 9% 3 3% 2 2% 104

improving the health and well-being of residents

52 50% 30 29% 9 9% 9 9% 4 4% 104

enhancing the social connections between individuals and organisations

59 57% 26 25% 6 6% 9 9% 4 4% 104

increasing the safety and amenity of the area (e.g. as a result of disaster-related debris on land and water being mitigated)

47 45% 35 34% 10 10% 7 7% 5 5% 104

40

90


Figure 10: Respondents perspectives about the impact of the Program on the broader community

Q10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The Program contributed to the broader community by:

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

No

. of

par

tici

pan

ts

Assisting Supporting the Enabling Enhancing the Ensuring that Helping to Improving the Enhancing the Increasing the landholders to local economy landholders to water quality, or excess debris, prevent further health and well- social safety and return to full (e.g. small cope with future the health and resulting from damage, or being of residents connections amenity of the agricultural businesses) cyclone and flood stability of flooding, has erosion, on land between area production events aquatic & riparian been used individuals and

sooner ecosystems beneficially organisations


41


4 Results - Focus Group and Telephone Interviews

This section presents and describes the focus group and telephone interview results. Regional NRM body areas were recorded for each landholder who was interviewed, but not for the stakeholder representatives (in order to maintain their anonymity). For ease of reporting, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, the findings from the focus group session and the landholder and stakeholder telephone interviews have been reported together in this section. The naming convention used to distinguish between the respondents is:

Landholder 01 CA = landholder from the CA region

Focus Group SEQC = focus group landholder from the SEQC region

Stakeholder 01 = stakeholder (region not disclosed)

4.1 Overall a successful Program, however delays and confusion

4.1.1 A successful Program, however there were delays

Several interview respondents thought the Program was successful and agreed with the concept of assisting agricultural and riparian area landholders as a way of contributing to agricultural production, environmental restoration and the broader economic and social recovery of their communities (discussed further in section 4.5). However, the long delay (estimated at between 6-9 months) in the finalisation of the Program guidelines and roll out of the funding to regional NRM bodies had a considerable impact, with some stakeholder representatives indicating that the time lag resulted in the Program not being as successful as it could have been.

I think on the whole it was a great program that generated lots of really good outcomes for our region… It built some great partnerships and did a lot of fantastic work. Stakeholder 04

Yeah, definitely. I just, yeah, I really think it really was successful and what we delivered on ground definitely was accessible and what we did, the projects were proven that resilience can take into account and planning for those future events definitely was taken into account and what was done worked, and that was tested because of that Marcia event that we had. It was tested and proven. Stakeholder 10

The only thing I'd say is that I think it was a really, really good program. Stakeholder 17

Oh I think the timing was in relation to particularly government I think just those usual sort of processes to pull the program together and wrap it up and actually get the funding signed off by ministers I suppose and actually out the door… I can understand why governments do that sort of thing, but it doesn't really work well in these sort of situations particularly where it took so long to get the actual approval of the dollars from the program after the actual event. I think that really took the gloss off it in terms of what could have been achieved if we'd had the funding green light a little earlier. Stakeholder 01

I guess in summary, excellent concept, could have been delivered better - missed out on some great opportunities to actually get bang for buck and provide further long term resilience. ... Again, I will stress if we have a similar event, we certainly need a project like that to be funded. It just needs to be done more strategically and more effectively. Stakeholder 03

Well let me first say I'm glad there was a program. I felt that it being part of NDRRA this time around was a good step forward. So yes while there were negative things in relation to the time and all that kind of stuff I don't think we should just be saying it

42


was bad. It was brilliant that that amount of money was made available to do the things that we did and we think we could have done more if we could just make it better. I would hate people to think that we were just throwing brickbats at it because I'd hate to have thought what would happen if we had nothing. Stakeholder 05

I think it achieved many of its goals. Look it was a learning experience for everyone. Obviously if it was run in north Queensland where the NRM bodies have a bit more experience in this sort of thing and perhaps a different relationship with the producers in some cases that it might have got up and running a bit quicker and happened a bit quicker. I think considering that it was something out of the experience of the NRM bodies down here I think it went pretty well. Stakeholder 06

It did, definitely did help. Well I mean it was definitely a successful program but it could have been delivered quicker. It would have targeted more landholders if it had have been rolled out more quickly… I guess my wrap up is that it was a good program, it worked but it could have been better if it rolled out sooner. Stakeholder 10

I think that if it had happened quicker there would have been a greater benefit. Stakeholder 06

It wasn't as successful as it may have been. It was definitely funding that was desperately needed and it wasn't a waste of money, but I think there were some ways in which it could have been more effective in its application. Stakeholder 13

I think it is a good initiative. As I say, the main obstacle initially was just timeliness, it seemed to be protracted and lost the momentum directly after the event. Stakeholder 16

(If the funding had come sooner) I think it would have helped them get back into production sooner. It would have actually helped them probably get into production for that growing season. A lot of guys were just - it meant that those dams weren't filled for the rest of the year because they were washed out. So they lost water basically for a wet season until that work was done. In some cases it was two wet seasons. So if you think about how this infrastructure works on properties that really limits your production or it increases your input costs because you've got import water or you've got to run another pipeline from somewhere. So you've got extra costs involved in producing your livelihood, so all that compounds on their bottom line…I think people would have felt more supported had it come sooner rather than waiting for a while. Stakeholder 01

This time lag and the impact it had on the relationships between government, regional NRM bodies, other community groups and landholders is discussed in more detail in section 4.8.3.

4.1.2 Confusion or too long ago to remember

In addition to Cyclone Oswald, in recent years, Queensland has been struck by a series of cyclones and subsequent flooding events, for example, Cyclone Larry (Mar 2006), Cyclone Hamish (Mar 2009), Cyclone Yasi (Feb 2011) and more recently, Cyclone Marcia (Feb 2015). It should be noted that a few of the landholders who were interviewed for this study appeared to be confused, or indicated that it was just too long ago to remember, about aspects of both the cyclone event itself, and the specific details of the Program.

For example, some landholders seemed to be confused about Cyclone Oswald, mistaking it with either Cyclone Yasi or Cyclone Marcia, whilst others could not remember how they found out about the Program. It was also thought that in some cases, the Program was mistaken with the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority’s (QRAA) Special Disaster Assistance - Primary producer grants.

43


Facilitator: Could you tell me a little bit about your experiences of cyclone Oswald to start with? Interviewee: Was that in 2010 or 2011? Facilitator: January 2013. Interviewee: That cyclone. Well I suppose it didn't - I can’t actually remember thatsorry. Landholder 16 QMDC

So after Cyclone Yasi 2010-2011, we had volunteers come out and help us do fencing and I'm really not quite sure how that happened because we didn't really ask for it… See I'd have to go and have a look at my notes - maybe they were - did come after Oswald. You might be right… I have no idea who organised the first lot. I think -oh I think our neighbour, maybe they contacted our neighbour and then our neighbour said oh we've got the volunteers coming down and because it's a boundary fence, our neighbour told us about it. I think that might be what has happened. Landholder 02

CA

We got a couple of lots of funding through them. It might have been about that time anyway… Well, I'm not sure, you see. I'll probably get mixed up with where I got the money from…. I can't think now. Maybe it was just - maybe I didn’t get repairs from (organisation). Landholder 08 FBA

Honestly it's a while ago now. We've gone through another cyclone since then so -yeah, Landholder 13 FBA

Facilitator: How did you find out about the program if you hadn’t worked with (organisation) before? Interviewee: I honestly don’t know. My son got onto it and I don’t know how he saw it, unless he had worked with them before but I don’t really think so. He must have, I don’t know. Would we have done it through Landcare? Landholder 15 QMDC

You're testing my memory. [Laughs]. Honestly, so much has happened, I couldn't tell you. Landholder 17 QMDC

People weren’t making a distinction between the fund recovery getting back to productivity that the NRM groups were helping with and the other fund recovery grants around which were about one-off things to farmers or long-term loans. They weren’t, you know, people involved were likely to be fine with those grants don’t make a huge distinction between some of the outcomes. Stakeholder 17

However, despite this confusion by a small number of landholders, most of the respondents who were interviewed in this study provided many examples of how the Program contributed to the agricultural, riparian, and broader economic and social recovery of their communities. In addition, they also spoke about the impact of Cyclone Oswald, and the influence that participation in this program, had on them. Their perspectives are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

4.1.3 Not all the landholder respondents had participated in the Program

Upon interviewing, it became apparent that not all of the landholder contacts provided by the regional NRM bodies had actually participated in the Program. When asked why they hadn’t participated in the Program, these landholders gave varying responses. In some cases it was because they had not applied to participate in the Program, in other cases it was because they had applied, but their applications were unsuccessful. Whilst it is unclear as to why these specific landholder contacts were provided for this study, the research team nonetheless decided to include these perspectives in this report, as they gave valuable

44


insights into landholder perceptions of who was eligible, and what areas and activities were and should be eligible.

45


4.2 Contribution to agricultural production

Respondents were asked what contribution the Program made to agricultural production and in particular, whether the funding had assisted landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without it.

Landholders and stakeholder representatives believed that the Program definitely assisted in various aspects of their agricultural activities.

Well it did because we had fencing for animals…Otherwise they would have all been up the top. We wouldn't have been able to use half of our farm. Landholder 02 CA

Yeah. It definitely helped. Yeah. Yeah. Landholder 09 FBA

Oh absolutely, yeah. I mean the thing is when a cyclone hits like that you spend half -half the time is actually cleaning up. So there was a lot of clean up to do before we could even get fences back up, debris on fences and fences knocked over and oh, we actually replaced even boundary fence… I mean it's been fantastic the - between the QRAA funding this year and that funding last year, we've managed to do some really significant repairs that - I mean we wouldn't have needed them I guess if it wasn't for the cyclone coming through, but it would have taken us several years to catch up otherwise. Landholder 13 FBA

Oh yeah, absolutely, otherwise we would have been washed out. Landholder 21 BMRG

I think it helped their business return (to production faster) in the sense that - I'd have to use some specific examples I suppose but if a grazing property had lost its fences on its watercourse then it can't graze its cattle until a fence goes back up so putting the fence up and putting the fence in the right place and repairing the banks, does increase its productivity … The levee bank issues I saw down in the (catchment name withheld), where a producer had his whole paddocks, you know, (a foot) of soil washed away and they had to restore that and re contour it. Without that help they wouldn't have been in business so absolutely, yes. Stakeholder 02

Yeah I do. I do. To what degree I wouldn’t be able to say, but I definitely think there's a number of landholders who benefited from having the program Stakeholder 08

Yeah, particularly with those initial grants. Those initial $10,000 grants - definitely, because - fixing irrigators, doing some laser levelling, fixing their fences… That initial round of funds - that was its intention (it) was to quickly get out there, and get those things fixed. Stakeholder 12

However due to the time lag in the finalisation of the Program guidelines and the subsequent distribution of the funding (discussed further in section 4.8.3), many stakeholder representatives thought that the majority of agricultural landholders had already paid for and undertaken the work they needed to do to get back into production sooner.

By the time it got going, I think a lot of people had reset themselves and realised what they had to do, and they just got in. (The funding) came along afterwards. Stakeholder 09

Since the program delivered money late most landholders had already replaced crucial infrastructure and fencing to allow them to return to pre-flood production. Stakeholder 10

46


The short answer is we probably didn’t help them that much get back into production, they were already probably doing that, where they had any sort of resources to… In terms of actually getting back into production…They realise they need to produce to get an income, so they were on top of the production side pretty well anyway. Stakeholder 14

Because of the delay in the roll out of the program, a lot of that economic and social benefit probably didn't happen as much as could have happened simply because people have already recovered, done more recovery themselves. Stakeholder 06

Look there was a delay in receiving funding from the government…a lot of the works that were needing and doing to get them back to return for production had already happened by the time we received our funding. So… a lot of the urgent work that needed doing and that probably would have been of most benefit to fund had already been done by the landholders. Stakeholder 10

It depends on your definition of get back on your feet and your definition of quickly, but I don't think it was quick. Like I said, after any event like that, there are some things that need to happen within days and some things that need to happen within weeks and some things that can wait for months, and I think because of the delays in rolling out the program, some of those more immediate needs probably weren't covered. Stakeholder 18

We were out there immediately after the event and said, hey listen there's a possibility we may have some funding and then it just didn't happen till November and when we got back they said, “well we've already done the work. We've already done what we need to do”, the emergency stuff to get back to immediate production. Stakeholder 10

Given that (the funding) came a bit late for some people with the initial intent having a high degree of fencing that should be replaced, that sort of thing, much of that was done because we'd had I think it was about eight or nine months after the cyclone until we actually got the approval to move on organising funding arrangements with landholders. So much of that work had happened. We did initial scoping documents with landholders to look at the kinds of damage that were in place, and when we went back to them months later they'd had to obviously do boundary fencing and some of their internal fencing just to get their properties up and going so they didn't miss the next season's operation. Stakeholder 01

It was very slow to get on its feet. I think it was some six months after the flood before the money came through, it might have been slightly longer which basically makes it very hard - you know six months is a long time particularly in agricultural production terms. I mean you've missed a whole cycle… Our problem was is that we had lots of potential clients if you like who in some cases were waiting so long that they then actually used their (own money)…So in other words we went back to landholders that really did deserve some support and they'd moved on…. They'd done the works. It was done. We weren't allowed to actually refund them for stuff that they'd already paid for. It was pretty sad actually because they'd used what minimal amount of money they had to address - they were repairing health and production thing which could have actually been funded out of this lot and given them that money for other activities. Stakeholder 05

Although one stakeholder representative acknowledged that the delay might not necessarily be “a bad thing”, as it helped to build the resilience of landholders.

47


I think that's a conundrum for government because government would say we actually want our producers to be resilient. So if government rushes in too fast then the effected property becomes dependent on the government or rush in and give me a loan or a grant. If the government takes too long then the person says, well bugger it, I did it myself and that's not a bad thing. Stakeholder 02

Furthermore, when these landholders were finally able to access funding, they often spent it on activities that didn’t necessarily get them back in to production faster, or were not a high priority, and in many cases, would not necessarily have been undertaken, if the dollars had not been provided

It didn't really affect that dam particularly, in terms of our production. It did in terms of we lost water for cattle down that end but we have other water. That wasn't too much of an issue. Landholder 17 QMDC

I think the projects I did for (name withheld), were not high priority, that we did for -the river bank projects wasn't on the landholder's high priority list to get back on their feet…Worrying about a bit of dirt on the side of the river bank wasn't on the top of the list. They were more interested in getting the irrigation pump back in the river and getting the electrician to run new cabling…That was high priority stuff to keep their livelihood functioning. They weren’t worried about a bit of dirt on the side of the bank. That came later on when they got things settled down a bit... Some of it wasn't - it was good to get it fixed up, but it just wasn't right at the top of the list. Stakeholder 09

When we got the money a lot of the work had already been done. The landholders had already funded and found the money themselves to do the urgent works. So the funding that was (spent) was (on) the less urgent projects I guess. Stakeholder 10

It probably didn't make a lot of difference. We probably would have just went on as normal… As I said, this work probably still wouldn't have been done. Landholder 07 QMDC

Yeah, well we had cash flow problems. So yeah, it did help because we wouldn't have done that development probably, not as much, if we didn’t get the funding. Landholder 08 FBA

Put it this way, if (organisation’s name withheld) didn't supply some of that money I don't think the job would have got done. Landholder 06 BMRG

There's work that probably wouldn't be done now if we were funding it on our own… These banks and that, we probably wouldn't have had them fixed up properly. We might have just went in and did a half ditch job on it. Whereas with the funding we could do it properly. Landholder 07 QMDC

Well, we certainly couldn’t have done it without the funding. Landholder 09 FBA

I didn’t really want - well yeah, it fixed the problems up that we had, that was about it, but it sort of wasn’t things that I really wanted to have to spend money on. Landholder 21 BMRG

Male 1: I wouldn't have been able to repair the creek bank. It would have just had to stay. Female 1: Yeah, we would not have got the money to spread that manure that we spread. We wouldn't have had it in our own budget. Focus Group SEQC

They were very appreciative, they said they'd never have got more much done than they did in the timeframe they did, without that support. Stakeholder 14

48


What I saw were situations that were badly in need of doing before Cyclone Oswald came. Nearly everyone I worked for used that as an excuse - not an excuse. An opportunity to get done what was badly in need of doing anyway. To me I was frustrated by that…They were - I shouldn't say they were luxuries. Some situations were, yes desperately in need of doing. The damage that was caused wasn't directly and solely caused by Cyclone Oswald. They were ongoing drainage problems and things like that that were - could have been like that for 30 years. Now when there's a scheme available, oh well, I'll make use of that. We'll fix this, you know. Stakeholder 15

One landholder acknowledged that the funding they received through the Program “freed” their money up to spend it on activities that they thought were a priority for their enterprise.

Facilitator: Did it help you to get back into production faster? Interviewee: No… It was great in that I wouldn’t have done the job as good as it is done now. I probably would have taken a shortcut and spent half as much money on it and it probably wouldn’t have worked. So it is great that - I suppose the money I got to put into that, it freed me up a bit more money to put towards fertilizer or other things that I needed. Landholder 16 QMDC

Correspondingly, there were criticisms about the types of activities that were funded, with some landholders arguing that there were activities that would have helped them to return to production faster, that were not considered eligible, under the Program. These are discussed further in section 4.8.5.

The time lag in the distribution of the funding, combined with paperwork requirements, caused a few landholders to withdraw from participating in the Program altogether. According to the stakeholder representatives, in some cases these withdrawals occurred because of a general frustration with the perceived inefficiency of the Program, but in other cases it was due to changes in their personal circumstances in the aftermath of the cyclone (e.g. changing their business plan).

There are some that dropped out along the way for a range of reasons, in particular I guess it was a timing issue. We were trying to help people as best we could and we weren't around for the first nine months I suppose, so that created a bit of frustration for us and for them. Stakeholder 01

The time that it took them to do all their paperwork and all that shit at the start of it to be able to get on to a person's place was bloody ridiculous actually. Some of the landholders were getting a bit irate about it. One landholder, I went and saw him - one of my blokes and myself - we went and saw him on a Sunday ourselves. We talked to him. We came up with a plan, and then they come along and they told me don't go near him again. Then they lost him. He got the shits with (them) and told him to go away. We had it all sorted. Stakeholder 09

(Landholder) would have had one of the worst sites - or probably the worst site around… He was under financial stress big time because he had lost so much…. and we had a plan. What we had planned was going to be - it was going to benefit him. It was a compromise between what (organisation) wanted to do, and it was not going to cost any more.... Anyway, he got the shits with them in the end and told them to go away, don't worry about it. That was the end of that. That's why I say this paperwork crap - they just - there's just so much of it. He just got sick of it, had enough of it. That was the end of it. I know another that was much the same. He wanted the job done to get his land back, or citrus trees back, or made safe, but he was about ready to throttle some bugger [laughs]. That's what I mean. Stakeholder 12

49


I should also mention that there were some people that at the end of the day couldn't do the work for a whole range of reasons where there was - just given the time involved. I mean some of these were 12 months after and 18 months after the event. In some cases they said oh well we're now selling the property or they'd actually moved on. There were a couple of people that moved on. There was others that wanted to change their business plan a bit so we had rework to do then with them. So, yeah, that whole timing thing certainly creates some issues. Stakeholder 01

50


4.3 Contribution to riparian restoration

It should be noted that not every landholder who participated in the Program was a primary producer. Correspondingly, not all the work undertaken was related to primary production. Furthermore, in some cases, agricultural enterprises were funded to undertake environmental restoration works (such as riparian or stream bank recovery efforts), as opposed to activities that were related to returning to full agricultural production. In fact, in certain regions, it was thought that the majority of the funding was actually used to support riparian restoration, rather than assisting landholders to return to full agricultural production.

The message was loud and clear that from government's perspective the number one priority for the project was on farm productivity.... Their focus very quickly became riparian recovery. I appreciate that that's not a cheap exercise and there was some major bank areas that needed to be looked at, but when government says priority is on farm recovery first and foremost. Stakeholder 03

I think (regional body) was probably a little bit more on the environmental side rather than the sustainable agriculture side than say an organisation like (regional body) or (regional body) might have. Stakeholder 06

I don't think all of the funding from the program was utilised for that purpose. I think a lot of the funding - of that funding for that program was used for landscape and environmental restoration that had a longer term impact in potentially protecting properties from future flooding events. I don't believe that the funding was utilised as quickly or as specifically as it could have been. I think a lot of broader landscape work was done on non-agricultural areas of land. Stakeholder 13

(Regarding stream bank stability and water quality activities) I think that's probably where the bulk of the money went, anecdotally, and I think there was some good work done there. Stakeholder 18

However, as the purpose of this study was to determine whether the Program assisted landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without the funding, the main area of discussion in the telephone interviews related to the Program’s contribution to those activities that directly related to accelerating the return to agricultural production.

Nonetheless, several comments provided by landholders in these telephone interviews suggested that the many of the activities funded through the Program directly and indirectly contributed to enhancing riparian restoration through improving water quality, and the health and stability of aquatic and riparian stream banks and ecosystems.

Female 2: We had a lost a fair bit of land out of the creek and we had some work done to put a bit of a rock - not a rock wall, but where water comes out of the creek and flows down, it had just eroded that away. So we put some rock in there to stop that and that worked really well. But because we had a lot of rain come down for - it was probably 10 days constant. Focus Group SEQC

Male 1: So I was able to use that money to get a new bank pushed up. Where it was land that I was using it's now just a rock base, but with the funding I was able to - we dug out some soil from the top of the block and covered that rock, because otherwise it was just going to be exposed for next time. Focus Group SEQC

They granted the money to restore the banks, which was spraying and clean up the vegetation and that and then they said they would allow some fencing to keep the cattle away from it until it was all sprayed and that. Landholder 01 CA

51


Well they assisted with us with repairing about a 20 metre section of the riverbank where the water has come in and just ripped part of the riverbank away and dug a big hole… It took a massive big area out of that same section... We filled it in and we've put some rocks down the riverbank and planted some trees and that. To stabilise and try and prevent next time a flood comes well there’ll be rocks there to protect it and hopefully it won't take the bank away. Landholder 06 BMRG

We got waterways rebuilt and contours rebuilt and that sort of thing. Landholder 07 QMDC

We put in a watering system, poly pipe through the middle of the farm and we put a couple of tanks in, and we also put [in] 8 troughs. The fencing, if we fenced the creeks off, well we had to put water into those paddocks hence we got funding for full poly pipe, water tanks, troughs and fencing. That was all really good. Landholder 08 FBA

Yeah, we replaced a trough, put a trough and polypipe in place as well and that was just so that the stock could be watered in that paddock that's away from the workforce, because we had no water at all in that paddock except for the creek. So when it's in flood stock are either in the water or they're out of the water and yeah, so that assisted us to get that part of the project done. It was something that we'd been looking to do for years as getting water across that area, but we just hadn't done it and it helped us to get things back in place and probably running more effectively than it was before the cyclone, repairing a lot of the damage. Landholder 13 FBA

It was extremely useful for us to repair some of the damage that had occurred. We had some erosion issues. We were able to repair the bank of a dam using some of the funding that was available. On a water security aspect that was critical for us. We have a dam on the southern end of our property and it was broken by the water that came down there. So we were able to repair that. It was fairly straightforward and fairly well-organised. Landholder 17 QMDC

52


4.4 Impact on participating landholders

There is no doubt that Cyclone Oswald – and the subsequent flooding it caused – had a huge influence on the production, environmental, economic, social and psychological circumstances of many landholders.

The cost of a farmer trying to recover from these was - or is immense, and it's often overlooked or underestimated just how much money then on a per hectare basis the farmer has to spend just to try and get back to normal. So even after he's had a total wipe-out of a crop financially, he then has to sort of front up again in order to put another crop in, or another pasture, or re-do the fences again. So it was - the economic hardship was immense, as well as the psychological and just the straight-out planning and loss of rotations and anything else that the farmer was trying to do before. Stakeholder 16

In light of this, landholders were asked about the impact of Cyclone Oswald, and the influence that participation in this Program, had on them. Initial telephone interviews indicated that some landholders struggled with answering this question. Nonetheless, as the interviews progressed, and the question was posed in a less direct way, many interviewees disclosed more about their feelings in response to both Cyclone Oswald and participating in the Program itself.

A few landholders described the psychological stress associated with Cyclone Oswald and previous floods.

It was quite, quite scary. Landholder 02 CA

Yeah, it was a pretty traumatic time of our lives. Landholder 12 QMDC

You just get where you feel so vulnerable. Yeah you feel vulnerable and yeah, it hasn't been the easiest… Landholder 14 SEQC

Female 1: We thought it was more devastating than the first flood didn't we [name withheld]? Yeah, much more devastating. Male 1: We did, yeah. It wasn't quite as high. It was more damage done. Focus Group SEQC

Male 3: I know with the second flood I woke up one morning and I said to my wife, I said I don't think I can face this day. Focus Group SEQC

Likewise, many stakeholder representatives spoke about how some landholders were in a state of shock and didn’t appear to know what to do, nor have the capacity to work out what they needed from the Program, in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone.

Because a lot of farmers really - were just in shock for many months, not knowing how they could possibly start to re-farm. Stakeholder 04

It wasn’t just a case of saying well the water has gone down now we’ll just starting ploughing up the ground and plant the next crop, it was acres and acres of soil and farm land gone. They couldn’t do anything without actually starting to replace what was there before they could even work on the soil and plant again. They didn’t know where to start there was only so many contractors involved. Stakeholder 07

One dairy that I know… we saw him after the flood. I've never forgotten the look on his face. There was just bewilderment, loss. He just - they didn't know what to do. They had the flood come up underneath the house, through the house while they

53


were in it. It washed their dairy away and they had to try and milk cows because that's their living. There's a lot of people with some pretty sad stories to tell. Stakeholder 09

Some people just had no idea where to start and I think that's the intangible - I mean recognising that in a number of instances these people are in a high state or emotional stress, stand out at the back of their paddocks, see their fences flattened, see their bank washed away, see their produces being sort of inundated with water… (they) just don't know where to start. Stakeholder 02

Some of the farmers there I saw really were dispirited as a result of having to do this time and time again… There were some farmers there that just couldn't cope, you know. There were a lot of capital works had gone in, directing water and head ditches for flood irrigation that just got all washed out. Lots of capital works got damaged, pumps that were just undermined, main supply channels and main irrigation pipes were just left high and dry. So there were lots of capital works were absolutely ruined. So there were farmers there that were just in shock, if you like, and doing the typical farmer thing, just not telling anyone and just being quiet and things like this. Stakeholder 16

People were under a lot of stress. They were worn down. I think that we had no real way of knowing because we didn't actually measure it. But the observation suggests that the cumulative impact on the audience we were trying to engage was probably greater than even we had anticipated when we took it into account. I think that’s where the opportunity is to have a look at some of those things because everybody is an individual and thresholds vary enormously. Depending on the individual situation, depending on lots of things… It was highly variable. But immediately after the event when we started going out and talking to people it was obvious even to me that they were under a lot of additional pressure. You didn’t have to be an expert to see that they were in a state of shock. The people were using, you know, phrases that were a bit fatalistic. They were, I guess, devastated would be a word that people were using a lot. They were, you know, couldn’t believe it. They were just, like I said, the main areas that we went into were the worst effected ones. Because they'd been so badly affected the first time and this was for some of them it was worse. For some of them it wasn’t as bad. But (for other) they were very, what, low morale I'd guess you'd say. People were starting to realise that the financial implications of the losses were huge. I think when people are already in a bit of a - or consider that they weren't in a great position to begin with. I think a lot of people were really worried about their long-term future. Which made them probably not, you know, it was a bit difficult for them to concentrate on some of these immediate needs and things. They knew they needed to go and do things but they were sort of wondering whether it was going to make any difference. There was right through to the other extreme where people will do what they’ve always done, will fix it and just move on. I guess the thing is if there's a whole heap of people that may have been more - their businesses may have been in a better position as well as they personally may have been in a better frame of mind. But everybody reacts differently to stress. When you see a significant number of people within one group that are all fairly low at one point in time, it makes you take notice. Stakeholder 17

The fact that they don’t get back to you about something is probably because they're incapable of doing it. Not because they're not interested. When they're really badly affected they are extremely vulnerable and they just don’t have the ability for a short period of time to interact normally. Stakeholder 17

Landholders also expressed sentiments of appreciation, gratitude and relief, as a consequence of participating in the Program.

54


We feel a little bit more positive about getting something done because someone's listened. You know, someone's given a little bit of help rather than just go oh, no funding for that, no funding for that… creates a bit of positiveness, if you know what I mean. Landholder 02 CA

We were very, very much appreciative. (It) made you feel as though at least someone was interested. Landholder 02 CA

Look, just knowing there was someone there to help… It took a big load off your mind... So knowing there was someone there that were prepared to help financially was a big blessing. That's for sure. Landholder 03 FBA

A hell of a lot of relief all right… I'm just very, very happy, very grateful that we got the assistance because, as I said, things would have been worse now because the erosion would have been a lot worse now if we hadn't have got the money to do the work at the time. Landholder 07 QMDC

We were absolutely so pleased to get that assistance because it made us feel helped somewhat. You know, in that somebody did care a little bit…We are so grateful for the different assistance that we have received over the years. It's just so, so, so grateful. It's just - you know, you wouldn't - it makes me cry when I've given assistance. Landholder 14 SEQC

It's good that we feel like there's some support for the farmers out there because you look around the world, a lot of other countries, farming is actually all subsidised but Australia has it slightly harder in that respect. So it felt good that actually there was some funding to help alleviate the damage that Cyclone Oswald did. Landholder 17 QMDC

When there is that sort of thing around that there's hassle free assistance there to get you back on your feet so that you're not looking at something that looks horrible. You plan something and it's all washed out and buggered it's a bit depressing. You know what I mean. When you've got to look at something for weeks and weeks or months and months on end just wondering where you're going to get money from or how you're going to fix it or what you're going to do. Whereas opposed to if you can just get it done and get it fixed and get back to where you were, it makes life a lot easier and a lot less stressful. Landholder 21 BMRG

In my situation, had I not got the help - I've only got the aged pension coming in - So had I not got the help it would have just destroyed more for me … So really it not just helped me. It really helped me; it really helped my sanity I can tell you. But it would have also helped downstream a lot as well. ...But yeah I'm sure I'm not the only one that it helped to keep your head together. Landholder 22 SEQC

The stress of trying to recover from such major events can be a terrible thing but when you get assistance, especially financial assistance, it is a wonderful thing. Focus Group SEQC

Similarly, a few stakeholder representatives thought that some landholders just appreciated having someone come to talk to them and offer advice, irrespective of whether they received financial assistance.

So we found that landholders really appreciated the fact that somebody was coming, even if we couldn’t - if all we were doing was assessing the damage and assisting them with some advice that was a really important thing to them. So just having somebody who's coming along and actually showing an interest and actually caring is…it's really important. Stakeholder 05

55


I think he was very - this bloke was very appreciative of just going there with him and talking about things and putting a bit of a plan in place. So at least he felt that there was someone there, I suppose, just taking an interest in him. Once again, he was the average age of farmers in Australia, 52 or whatever, he would have been the other side of that well and truly. So it just gets a bit daunting, I would expect, looking from their eyes. Financially as well as physically. Stakeholder 16

I think there were some benefits in them having someone to talk to, them having -particularly those who were badly affected having somebody who came to their farm and say yeah, I understand their problems and offer to help and provide some money in some cases to help fix things. I think there was some - that was a big benefit, yeah. Stakeholder 18

In addition, stakeholder representatives described how the Program contributed to a positive change in landholders’ mental health and “frame of mind”, and ultimately assisting them to return to agricultural production.

I think this program along with things like helping hands and taking debris off fences, all those things help get people back to normal quicker. I would certainly probably give that even more value in terms of getting people back to productivity because it got them into the right frame of mind to get their business back up and running. Stakeholder 02

Yeah. I think our funding, as much as it was for productivity and for environmental purposes, had an equal benefit to the community through being able to help farmers -who just couldn't comprehend how they could go back to farming. Help them through their decision making and then help them into farming again so that their mental health at least in that aspect was being helped. Stakeholder 04

I guess I saw change from the beginning of the project right to the end, is probably where I'm getting it. You get in there and they're quite really down, and can't see the light at the time, because they've lost really good crops, and their paddocks have been chewed up, and unusable. Yeah - I guess that's their livelihood, so initially it was pretty heartbreaking, and then I guess as time goes by things start to improve, and they start getting back on track - so yeah, that's the difference. Stakeholder 12

It was also thought that people were talking about and seeking assistance for mental health issues a lot more than they used to. Correspondingly, one landholder spoke extensively about a desire to know how other landholders are faring in the aftermath of Cyclone Oswald, and the potential benefits of hearing about how different members of the community are managing in the aftermath of natural disasters.

We did also notice that in the course of doing our things, there was a lot of people that were getting help, if you want to put it that way, for their depression. Or seemed to be a lot. We certainly would have come across or be aware of at least half a dozen when normally those sorts of things, you're just not aware of them. Whereas this time people were a little bit more willing to talk about it… Because it's not that long ago that people wouldn’t talk about those sorts of things under any circumstances. Stakeholder 17

we did some suicide prevention training. Our staff here all got trained because we did have some very serious emotional trauma happening out there in grower land. I do know for a fact that it assisted the - the social - the interaction… it did allow people to interact - to try to seek or avail themselves of knowledge about what might be available to assist not only themselves but their immediate community as well. Stakeholder 13

56


I would like to know as a community, say how is the Lockyer? How did the Lockyer go? How did most farmers fare? Because you often look at other neighbours and you think well, they seem to be doing all right. They do - how come I'm not doing all right? I'm a failure. Whereas if you know well, 25 per cent of the farmers in the Lockyer Valley or 50 per cent of the farmers in the Lockyer Valley applied for those grants after the thing and most of them got it and they were very happy with it and it was lovely. I think that would help farmers in the area to cope and feel better about themselves. Because when you look at someone else who appears to be coping okay and you're not, privately not coping, to watch other people so called being successful and getting on with it makes you feel more of a failure. So I think it would help generally in a rural sense here in the Lockyer because I know a lot of the farmers in the Lockyer and I know dozens out west. They're all feeling very, very sad and unhappy. I mean you only have to look at the suicide rate to see that… If they could have access to information which shows that gee, we're all in the same boat, you don't feel such a personal and individual failure. You go well no, that's not my fault. It is definitely because the flood went over my property that I'm struggling. Yeah because it's hard to - it's hard for human nature to say well I'm suffering this because the flood went over here and I'm struggling to get back on my feet. I mean we've all got personal problems as well which after catastrophes and disasters, they always get worse too because you know, you've got some more stresses. Landholder 14 SEQC

A couple of respondents spoke about the importance of delivery organisations, such as regional NRM bodies, and other industry recovery officers, having adequate training in mental health first aid, as it was thought that there were not enough psychological support services for the general community, in the aftermath of Cyclone Oswald.

What we found is that our field staff were out on the ground working with landholders fairly early in the piece… Some of the other regions I think spend more time working in the area of referral to - if they thought people needed help. We weren't as active in that part but our staff were provided with advice on how to deal with that if they came across where they thought they could - that they were concerned that there was a problem. They weren't required to report it but I did hear sort of anecdotally that the staff did make some referrals but it was more low key if you like…. It was really important for them to have that information as well because it also gave them something to work with as well because going out and seeing people whose livelihood had been devastated and in some cases their homes isn't that much fun. Stakeholder 05

Interviewee: So just one other additional point… no social support in that flood recovery process whatsoever was available to me, nil. Facilitator: What do you mean by social support? Interviewee: Access to social workers or mental health workers or people like that. Landholder 04 CA

I honestly think that in hindsight now, some of our people were, while they were sympathetic to people's situations, I don’t think they fully understood the impact that particularly the multiple events have on a landholder and their capacity to reciprocate in those situations, you know… Even though we did specific training with our team Stakeholder 17

Talking about suicide prevention and things like that, I don't think a lot of those industry recovery offices and their staff on the ground are very equipped to deal with people who are very distressed. Those floods were horrific in their impact and it's very disappointing. Landholder 04 CA

57


It was just something that you picked up as you went around. There was - I know that there was supposed to be a person there. On another farm, another different case to the one I was speaking about a minute ago, I did try to get the person who was the nominated help person to come along with me to talk to a farmer, but I couldn't get him. He wasn't there to - I left messages, blah, blah, blah, but it didn't work. So that part of it fell down. I'm an agronomist, I'm not a psychiatrist or anything like that. I just thought if I took him with me to meet this farmer, he could form his own assessment rather than me having to form one and discuss things with this farmer. His wife was there and she was - as the wives do, shield or take on a lot of the stress. So she was there, so she appreciated my coming around. But as I say, I'm not a psychiatrist. Stakeholder 16

58


4.5 Contribution to broader economy

Respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program contributed to the economic recovery of the local community. In particular, whether they thought there were any flow-on effects to other neighbours or small businesses.

Both landholders and stakeholder representatives accredited the Program with positively contributing to the local economy. They also spoke about how assisting agricultural producers was a strategic and effective way of creating flow on effects to the rest of the community.

I think you'd have to say that there has been an economic effect, I mean, a positive benefit in a sense that when you put some investment and some support around people's recovery. Most of the time you're going to get a return on that. Stakeholder 17

It supported a lot of families that weren't directly affected but supported them to gain employment and that sort of thing, in their general business. Landholder 12 BMRG

I think there's a Federal Government view at least that this is actually an economic stimulus package as much as it is … a sort of landholder recovery package and the view is putting money into the local community to buy star pickets or fencing wire or get a D7 into, is putting money back into that community. So it has a social slash economic role and I think that, I mean my anecdotal observation is that does work. Stakeholder 02

If the farm is more productive, well, there's more jobs, more money flowing through the local community, all the rest of it. So there's economic benefit at that level as well. Stakeholder 18

It's important to get people back into production isn't it, because it's not just that farm. It's the community who's going to share in the money. It all has to be spent in our community. Very few of us go outside the community to spend our money. Focus Group SEQC

It helps farmers get back into production and that ultimately is going to have a flow-on effect to local communities… I dare say the biggest way you get money back flying through the economy is to get farmers and producers productive as quick as possible. Stakeholder 08

Examples of the economic contribution the Program provided to the community included employing consultants for specialised advice (e.g. agronomy, geomorphology, soil testing) and local contractors for specialised activities (e.g. dozer driving, excavating, road grading, laser levelling, manure spreading, fencing). However, even those landholders who undertook the work themselves spoke about how the funding enabled them to purchase equipment and materials from local suppliers (e.g. fencing, rocks, fuel, seed), thereby having a flow on effect to the local economy.

In almost all the programs there was a significant amount of local content…Most contractors were local or close to local. Some of them would be considered to be regional; some of the bigger ones where we had major works would have probably been regional suppliers. The majority of it would have been done by local contractors, local fencing people, local earthmoving contractors and the like. Stakeholder 05

Interviewee: My son did all of the work. Facilitator: Is he a local contractor?

59


Interviewee: Yes… Then the next door neighbour, he got a local contractor too to do his work. I know some of the other neighbours up further in the actual creek, they had a lot of work done with excavators, cleaning all of the creeks out. Landholder 15 QMDC

Whatever money we got from that scheme has now been spent on things in the district, in the town…repairs and maintenance, all that sort of thing. Landholder 07 QMDC

Female 1: We had to hire a manure spreader, we had to buy seed. The money was truly shared around…Then with the fuel and everything, our grant went to fuel and seed and contracting, manure spreading and that, so it was truly shared out… We got the benefits of it, but the community also did too, yeah. SEQC F/G SEQC

I provided the labour, I got the excavator in to place the rocks over the riverbank and things like that. Landholder 06 BMRG

60


4.6 Contribution to broader society

Respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program contributed to the broader society. There were mixed responses to this question. One stakeholder representative acknowledged that it is hard to measure social outcomes. Other respondents thought there were limited or no social benefits of the Program.

It's sort of hard to (measure) social outcome, we didn’t go out of our way to particularly measure that. Measuring social outcomes is difficult at the best of times. Stakeholder 14

Facilitator: From your perspective, are you aware of whether or not there were any social impacts or effects of people participating in the program on your local community? Interviewee: I would say they were minor. Landholder 17 QMDC

Facilitator: Do you think there were any social effects as a consequence of people participating and getting dollars from this grant? Interviewee: I don't think so. Certainly not on a broad scale. Stakeholder 15

Correspondingly, it appeared that a number of landholders were not even aware of whether their neighbours or other landholders in their area participated in the Program. It was suggested that this may be because of the social stigma that still existed within rural communities with respect to receiving financial assistance.

Not immediate neighbours, I wasn't - I wouldn't - no, I'm not sure of anyone else who received funding and that. Landholder 01 CA

One of our neighbours, they've got a dairy farm and I'm not quite sure. I know they were applying for QRAA funding, but I haven't - we're all sort of so busy, we don't sort of sit down and get into how they went and what they did and yeah…we sort of don't live in each other's pockets and sort of have local meetings and that sort of thing. So I'm not quite sure, really can't answer that question. Landholder 02 CA

Facilitator: Do you know any of your neighbours or people around the area who also participated in the program? Do you know much about whether or not many people did? Interviewee: I don't know, to be honest. Landholder 07 QMDC

I don’t know…I don’t know who got what and who did what. Landholder 21 BMRG

No, I do find people are very private about it… I do find farmers are - like you don't go up to someone and say, did you get $25,000? You just don't do that. It's - yeah, it's -yeah you just don't do that. Yeah it's very - yeah. It's - you're probably too young but years ago you'd never ever go on the dole. You'd never ever - like in the '70s and that when I was young, you'd never ever go on unemployment benefits because that was shameful and if you did, you would never tell anybody that you were getting any benefits because that was shameful and you wouldn't do that. Whereas now people are - feel entitled and they just call it their pay. I think farmers getting assistance like this, it's a little bit like it's - you know, it's back like in the '70s getting the dole…Because assistance to farmers is actually a fairly new thing. It's not something that's been around for a long, long time because I think traditionally farmers have never been given assistance much, but yeah, so - and I think that's possibly why they don't talk about it, because it's still a new thing. Landholder 14 SEQC

61


However one landholder did speak about how the disaster had brought people together – but the implication was that it was a consequence of the disaster itself, rather than participation in the Program.

Female 1: We met neighbours we didn't know before didn't we? Male 3: Mm, yes. Female 1: Yes, a disaster brings people together. You see it all over the world. Facilitator: How were you brought together? Female 1: Oh neighbours a few streets up that we didn't know came to help us. That's the... Male 1: Yeah, just turned up. Female 1: Yeah, they just see you and want to lend a hand, what can we do, yeah. Cleaning stuff off barbed wire fences and all that sort of stuff. Focus Group SEQC

A number of stakeholder representatives also spoke about the positive contribution that workshops associated with the Program provided, as they created an opportunity for landholders to get together. These gatherings were considered instrumental in promoting social cohesiveness, as well as supporting individual health and wellbeing, by helping landholders to realise that other people were experiencing the “same thing”.

We ran some workshops up this way that I guess supported people on the land just by running them in those local communities. That was an event in itself; getting people to talk about the flood issue…. Getting people together to actually just share those experiences, I mean empathise with one another a little bit and then learn from it as well. I know we're not really a social service organisation but we found that some of the activities we were running there was a need there to fill a gap around communities getting together locally and getting in and - I don't mean the immediate clean up stuff, but even nine to 12 months later it was really important for people to get together, see how far they'd come, how they'd moved on, that sort of thing. So you can't I think underestimate the value of - it's not just the workshops to give the technical advice around what we were doing - it was the social aspects for people getting together and talking about how they're going to into the future be able to cope better with it as communities… they wanted more of those kind of activities. Stakeholder 01

Well we did run workshops, a few workshops which was in conjunction with this program. Yeah, so I guess socially it's brought landholders together to increase their knowledge to try and improve resilience into the future I guess, yeah. We did have a, at the end of the program we had like a wrap up function where we invited all the landholders to a dinner at (name withheld) to sort of provide feedback, sit back and reflect on what happened and their projects. We had sort of showed vision of the video case studies that we did. We had the guys from state government come and do a presentation and talk about the program. Yeah, so we had - I think we invited, I can't remember, I think we had about 25 to 30 landholders turn up. Stakeholder 10

We had public meetings at the hall to talk about options to get things back up and running…Yeah that was really good to see some proactive addressing of the issues from a very, pretty early on stage. Yeah I think that certainly helped that community get a sense of cohesiveness as well. Because they were having community meetings and talking about it and working out a way forward and what we can do to help secure our farms and livelihoods into the future. Stakeholder 14

As a result of the soil tests that were taken in each area, so we had a follow-up meeting to go through that and I presented the results back to the groups. There was just open discussion about, this is what we've found in all your areas, and everybody's results were up there on the graph.… So yeah, it did allow that group of farmers to come together. Very informal chats, which was great for them just to ask

62


any questions they asked. There was no real [agenda], it was very loose, I sort of ran it, just to say, these are your results, and I would let the questions come from there…I think it did have a positive… Because they were there and sharing their experiences, as did other farmers. So they weren't picked on, they were just part of the group and they could contribute and share whatever they wanted to. It probably helped them to feel as if everybody else got affected to some degree. Stakeholder 16

I think that we definitely noticed with the feedback from landholders that some of the engagement events because they had a bit of a social component to them that they found it beneficial to be there. We also saw some examples of community networks having social events to [bolster] their own morale down at (location). The local landholders there they… wanted to have an event. Or they did have an event to thank them. So they basically had a bush dance and a barbeque to thank the volunteers for helping them. I went along and people were telling me that it was not only good for them to thank the volunteers that made them feel better. But just being there and having some sort of social interaction and reminding themselves they weren’t the only people going through everything. Getting away from the place for a couple of hours of just being part of the community again was a huge thing. That was part of their recovery journey. Stakeholder 17

As a consequence, there was a call for more social aspects to be incorporated into this Program, and similar disaster related initiatives, in the future.

In the aftermath (of a disaster)… surely we could incorporate and see the value in incorporating some of that community and social wellbeing into the programs that we offer…Because the business is one side of it, but if you're not feeling up to it well you're not going to get that business up and running anyway. Stakeholder 01

Other ways in which the Program seemed to contribute socially, related to the relationships that were formed or strengthened as a direct consequence of the Program. These included relationships between individuals (e.g. neighbours helping neighbours); between individuals and organisations and landholders (e.g. landholders and NRM bodies); and between organisations (e.g. NRM bodies and mental health service providers, agricultural industry groups, local government, state and federal government).

There's one farmer's wife got hold of a neighbour and asked him could he come and help because her husband wasn't coping. There were quite a few instances like that. Yeah, so the other bloke helped the other fella out and got everything back on track for him, at least. So that was psychological, it wasn't financial, but it just made him feel a bit better that his head ditches were up and functioning now. Because obviously everybody can see that if he had ditches that are all blown out, you can't irrigate and so what do you do? So at least it allowed him in that case to carry on. But there were a lot of those situations around the place. Just triggers like say your fences all got washed away again after you'd just rebuilt them, and head ditches. They were just very - because you look at it every day, it's not as if you can hide it. Every time you walk out, go down the paddock, you see these things. So it reminds you every day when you drive around your farm, you'll see these things there, the reminders. Stakeholder 16

Some of the NRM bodies in say, well for example like (regional NRM body) to pick a particular one, their relationship with the producers was probably a little bit different to how it was at the end of the project. That sort of adjustment in the way that they run their programs probably changed as they rolled out this program. Stakeholder 06

They (regional NRM bodies) built a better relationship with the producers. That's not to say they didn't have a relationship but it improved the relationship which meant that the way they delivered the service was much better towards the end of the project

63


than it was at the beginning and that just changed the way they operate. Stakeholder 06

Community health were great as well and continue to be, but like I say, [they've] probably opened up opportunities for us. We've got now a wider network of people that we access for some of those kind of services. It just helps to I think - for us to be able to - not refer people isn't the right word, but just to profile some of those services that are around and put people in touch basically with those - whether it's - I mentioned financial before, but those mental health services, general social services that are available through community agencies or through Community health, yeah. Stakeholder 01

One partnership that we developed as part of this program was working with the Queensland Police Force… they were (advising) people who had extensive damage and didn't know what to do that we could help fund and help them out a bit so they would pass on details who we would then contact. So that partnership was a really good one. I think also that partnership helped to relieve some of the stress of our project officers, knowing that they had someone that if they did come across someone who was struggling that they didn't have to deal with it directly, that we could - there was a process there to try and help those people out. Stakeholder 04

64


4.7 Contribution to ongoing resilience

Respondents were asked about whether they thought participation in the Program contributed to improving landholders’ ongoing resilience to future cyclone and flood events.

Again, the responses varied. In many cases, the funding was deliberately used to improve the property and increase its resilience to future natural disasters, especially to more frequent, lower level flooding (e.g. replacing fences higher in the landscape). A couple of stakeholder respondents even cited the reduction in devastation of Cyclone Marcia (which occurred in February 2015) as an example of the increase in resilience.

It's probably better than what it was. Yes. Landholder 06 BMRG

Yeah, definitely…having that fencing in place now means that if it does flood again we've got (the cattle) up in the right area, then we don't need to get them out. Landholder 13 FBA

With rain since if we hadn't done the repairs that we did we would be suffering a lot of damage now because the water would be following the old track from (Cyclone)Oswald and there would be continuing problems and probably things would be a lot worse now. Landholder 07 QMDC

It wouldn't have made any difference on my creek crossings but some of the other neighbours that had to clean all of the logs and things out of theirs, it'll help when the next flood comes. No, it certainly stopped more erosion on my place through having all of the contour banks done. Yes there would have been a lot more erosion this year if we hadn't have had them done. Landholder 15 QMDC

I’m sure it did help at the time and it will have a little bit of an ongoing effect I suppose. … The soil erosion measures that I got funded for that I did, I'm sure it will have an ongoing effect in that next time there's a big flood, the problem might only be x percent as bad as it was before maybe. So there is going to be an ongoing benefit because every flood, the problem is going to be smaller. Landholder 16 QMDC

I think those who have directly benefitted are more, their properties or their facilities are more resilient in their places. I think they have also learnt from looking over the fence of their neighbours like people have put their chemical sheds a bit higher up than last time. Stakeholder 02

Well there was certainly some projects which would indicate that that's probably the case, stabilisation of river banks and things which were vulnerable to future events...So you would expect that it certainly would have delivered that. Stakeholder 06

For quite a few landholders not just replaced what they had damaged or [unclear] what they had damaged, but it also helped them to put fences in different places and helped to build dam walls better and that sort of thing. So into the future it's not as -hopefully they're far more resilient, their fences are in better places to withstand future floods and the dams are better built rather than the dodgy jobs they might have done in the first place or whatever. Stakeholder 01

I know there are examples of that which would obviously help farmers, graziers, producers, community, better prepare for the next one … Yeah I’m aware of (name withheld)’s projects… who have worked with farmers to, rather than put their fences back here or build the structure this way, move infrastructure so the next flood may not damage as much. Stakeholder 08

65


Yeah - definitely, that was the whole idea of it, was really just to deal with those future events. I mean, sometimes you can't stop some of these events, and what the damage they do. But we were trying to set them up, so the damage was never going to be so bad. Stakeholder 12

The ones that are - that have been larger landscape programs have hopefully improved resilience in the landscape and shouldn't - should probably provide some protection from future events of that nature…Certainly we do encounter lower levels of flooding on a much more frequent basis and I think some of the work that was done will be - will improve resilience in those kinds of circumstances… Certainly the lower level flooding we get almost every summer - the projects have provided some resilience in that regard. Stakeholder 13

We talked to a lot of people about how they might better prepare for future flood events. We did farm planning with them and looking at a little bit beyond the normal rainfall run off model, dealing with water on farms and to try and take into account managing the flood plains as well for flood events, which has not specifically been explored from a farming sense, with the erosion of waterways and how they manage their runoff. We probably helped more with the resilience building side of things and addressing issues that they may have otherwise ignored to their detriment down the track because they might not have built in that resilience, the creek banks falling away for example…I thought that was a really good outcome. Stakeholder 14

Yeah, I think we've built some really great resilience and a lot of that was actually proven in the 2015 Marcia event. That hit the north of our region that had been hit in 2013. A lot of the work that we put in place stood up and did the jobs that they were supposed to do… So when Marcia came through it tested quite a lot of our previous works that we'd done as part of the [unclear] program. They stood up well and the landholders were really happy. As part of the production element people had put in new practices and were managing their land differently to better account for the water movement and the hydrology of the landscape. Stakeholder 04

Definitely, definitely some of these big laser levelling projects we did across properties… We took down fences, and plough banks that end up in between - along fence lines… it was half done through (Cyclone) Marcia - even though it wasn't perfect, those landholders could already see that it was going to flow more evenly over that paddock, and not cause the damage that they would've expected normally. Stakeholder 12

In other cases it appeared that the Program funding was used to replace infrastructure to exactly as it was, prior to Cyclone Oswald. In addition, it was acknowledged that not everyone was interested in becoming more resilient.

Facilitator: Did it help you in terms of agricultural production? Interviewee: No it just put everything back to the way it was sort of thing, so we'll only graze the same amount again…. There was no financial benefit really from it, it was just repairing what had been washed out, just fixing stuff up to the way it was. Landholder 21 BMRG

Some landholders definitely will be interested (in) preventative maintenance whereas, you know, those landholders that are out there that are reactive, rather than proactive. Stakeholder 10

Some people are not prepared to change their practices to become more resilient What we found though was that there was a significant proportion of people that whatever reason you went in to weren’t interested in changing practices. Just because they’ve had a disaster doesn’t mean they're a different person. I think

66


there'd be a strong correlation between the people who weren’t open to some of those improvements around improving resilience. They'd be exactly the same people who are not open to any of the innovation in agriculture. You know, they don’t fence their creeks. They don’t [unclear] property. There's lots of things they don’t do. Why they do or don’t do things is pretty much from a strong belief they have. All the other evidence around hasn’t changed their thinking up until that point. When you go in and say that some of the criteria are that if you going to get the support on this program that you would need to exclude grazing on the creek so you can protect it from erosion in the future, have a buffer zone between an area and the edge of a waterway. Relocate some of the infrastructure because it is in an inappropriate [area]. They're not interested. They never have been. They probably never will be…They were looking for grants not the support to do things better. Stakeholder 17

Furthermore, some stakeholder representatives argued that no two floods are the same and that there was very little that can be done to improve resilience to flooding of the magnitude that was experienced after Cyclone Oswald.

I've got to say no because they don't actually farm the river banks. It hasn't made them any more resilient. If we get a flood again - a big flood like we had - that type of thing will still happen again, and the landholder has no control over that. He can't do anything to make - to change that because of the way that all this land has been formed with floods and that over thousands of years. The landholder has no control over that, so has it made him more resilient? I don’t think you can say it has. Stakeholder 09

I don't know that it - it's almost like each disaster at a time. Stakeholder 02

A different height of flood will do different damage. No two floods are the same…. I don’t know whether - you can't prevent a flood. A flood up and just happens. It's fairly quick. You get a drought it's just a - it's a long low death. It sneaks up on you over a few years. Can you drought-proof a place? … Floods will break people on the land quicker than a drought will. Floods happen quickly, so you can lose all your - floods will take your infrastructure overnight, as in buildings, machinery… Stakeholder 09

A flood like that - I don't think anything that people can really do in the landscape really has any huge effect… I think the kind of flood that year - that 2013 was, was just off the scale. Therefore nothing really - you've just got to cope with it after I think. Stakeholder 13

Nevertheless, there was a general acknowledgement that a lot more needed to be done to improve resilience, whether it is through immediate investment in on-ground activities, or a longer-term focus on improving risk management in rural communities.

There's certainly damage now that's been caused by the flood that hasn't been addressed. In another event it will certainly get worse. A lot of it you could repair or fix or try and improve it in some way that it's not going to keep getting any worse. That certainly would help, most definitely, because if you spend - just plucking figures here. If you spend $5000 now you could save $15,000 later on. That's what I call preventative measures or maintenance, whatever you want to term it as. Stakeholder 09

Even though the projects were done, I think there's so much more that could be done, and I think a lot of landholders really understand that now. I think flood mitigation's a huge thing, not good in levee banks, but getting your property ready for it. More planning I think to local government planning scheme, so things like this plan that we've done I think should be - there's no legislative backing on it, but it's a great plan. I really think there should be some sort of push to get this into planning schemes.

67


Getting local government to really understand more of that rural scape a little bit more, and allow for people to do things that are going to mitigate against the flood. Stakeholder 12

I think (we could be) building resilience into the whole system itself, because people forget after the flood that if you build a house in a flood plain it has a potential to be washed away. I guess some better planning and some forward planning for disasters. You have individuals applying and individuals eligible, but what you really want is a system solution that's going to have more resilience and a better outcome in the long term. Stakeholder 14

(We need) industry moving more into the space to send some clear messages to land managers around those same issues about sustainability, resilience of the landscape, (and) strategic threat management. Those things can be done better now that the impacts in the event or disaster type scenario is going to be less in most cases and certainly the mindset will be more receptive to some of these longer term more sustainable thinking solutions. Stakeholder 17

If we could actually be focusing on resilience and risk management in relation to floods and disasters proactively - that would be a really good big step forward. Stakeholder 05

68


4.8 Feedback regarding the Program administration

Respondents were broadly asked about their views of the administration of the Program as a way of better understanding their opinions of the efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness of the Program. However, it should be noted that it was not the purpose of this study to evaluate the administrative, governance, reporting and delivery aspects of the Program, as that was explored in the report Review of the development and implementation of the Ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald On-farm Productivity and Riparian Recovery Program (DNRM, 2015).

Correspondingly, this section is a condensed version of the feedback received regarding various administrative aspects of the Program. Many of these aspects are inter-connected (i.e. the delay in funding directly influenced the types of activities that were funded); however, for ease of reporting they have been broadly categorised into: delivery; eligibility criteria; timelines; cost effectiveness; and final outcome.

4.8.1 Delivery

The respondents were asked if they were happy with the delivery of the Program. The answers varied, with some respondents indicating that regional NRM bodies were appropriate organisations to deliver the Program, particularly because of their established contacts and environmental and agricultural remit.

In terms of what worked well going through the natural resource group [was good], because there's already a contact established. Landholder 13 FBA

I think NRM bodies are probably not a bad group; also they have a broader remit, like they have the environment and sustainable activity remit. They're not a bad group to choose… One of the advantages of contracting out to an NRM body I guess is that you have a separation of activity between funder and provider and you also have that distance between the government and the delivery of the service. It can be managed a little bit more hands off in that way. Stakeholder 06

However, there were a few comments regarding the perceived difference in capability between various regional NRM bodies.

I think government also has to decide, in using third party providers, what's the skill and capability. I mean I'm not - just saying let's use NRM groups doesn't necessarily mean that each NRM group's got the same capability. So I think government needs to, government processes need to say what might the response be and how might we need to do this. Stakeholder 02

I think it would depend on the capacity of the NRM body, like if we had a major event out west for example I'm not sure that the NRM bodies would have the capacity to deal with it like some of the larger ones; it's a bit of a horses for courses thing I think and the nature of the event. Stakeholder 06

I actually recommended on several occasions that (organisation A) have a conversation with (organisation B) who were delivering that side of things. I recommended that they have a conversation to compare notes and delivery mechanisms. I don't think that that ever actually happened. Going to (organisation B’s) meetings, whilst it was informal so to speak, they were very professional and very diligent and delivered a lot of money to a large number of businesses. Whereas the (organisation A) side of things seemed to focus in on a small number of businesses with a much more significant funding bucket. Stakeholder 03

69


Furthermore, there were concerns that the regional NRM bodies were too focussed on environmental activities, to the detriment of the Program’s agricultural productivity objective. There were also queries about the length of time and effort it would take regional NRM bodies to engage with non-members in those areas worst affected by Cyclone Oswald.

I think that's one of the reasons it might be good to have some other bodies involved is that NRM groups will naturally have a - probably prioritise the environmental side of things higher than the productivity side of things, and I think that did happen. Stakeholder 18

I think there was an expectation that the NRM groups had, in my area anyway, a very broad footprint and connection to landholders in general affected by the disaster. On reflection they're a membership type organisation and their connections were strongest with their members, which is understandable but their members may not have been located where the damage was. So that then creates a whole new process of reconnecting with people who they don't know and developing relationships and all those sort of things. Stakeholder 02

You're never going to get everyone. I mean our field officers do the best they can. They contact who they can and they focus on where the damage is and those field officers live in those areas and they live in those catchments. So they know where the damage is so they know where to target and, you know, if there's landholders in those areas that are not interested, they don't push them. Stakeholder 10

Correspondingly, alternative delivery providers were proposed – including agricultural industry groups, local government and even state government, itself.

(Local governments) are very closely involved in the local disaster recovery, each council has an economic recovery committee by the state management frame. Stakeholder 02

Interviewee: (Regional NRM body) didn't really have the skills and capacity for extension in that respect. They were thrown in the deep end or the project coordinators were thrown in the deep end. Facilitator: What would be a better delivery model? Interviewee: Industry delivers it. Facilitator: In collaboration with (organisation) or on their own? Interviewee: Certainly in collaboration… If it's for industry benefit then it needs to be delivered by industry. Both (industry organisation) and (regional NRM body) work collaboratively very well in this region. Certainly we don't have all the expertise when it comes to the environment, bank stabilisation, things like that, but just like (organisation) did, we could have brought in that expertise. We certainly would have liked to have worked with (regional NRM body) on it, but when it comes to delivery for industry benefit, it needs to be delivered by industry. We proved that that can work with the IRO program. I mean we're only talking about the on farm productivity project here, but the IRO project that was delivered under the umbrella of QFF worked very well. Stakeholder 03

Arguably there might be other organisations out there who could be involved as well. They certainly have a role to play in that they do have a regional focus and they do have mandates to look at environmental repair, I guess. But I'd suggest for next time, would be might look a little bit wider as well. There might be other - I'm sure there are in some places. It might vary from location to location. There might be other organisations who could add value… I'm thinking of the AgForce type organisations, the industry bodies. There are other sort of grower groups, if you like. The one that comes - there's a group in this area called Conservation Farmers Incorporated who are basically a grower group, so they tend to have a more technical bent, but I think

70


they could be involved. I think there could be a role for government agencies themselves to do some on-ground work, sort of have a more hands-on role, for example, Department of Agriculture, and perhaps others. Stakeholder 18

However, criticisms were raised of these organisations as well - namely that industry groups only focus on their member base; NRM and agricultural productivity is not a high priority within local government; and landholders would prefer to be “at arm’s length” from government.

The reality of an industry group is that they would tend to favour their own members. Stakeholder 06

I think the utilisation of industry organisations, e.g. our own to work - not - I guess not to absolutely distribute the funding, but to have a lot more input into what is funded, or to be used as conduits more readily. Industry organisations however I know work in the interests of their members and so it can become a little bit skewed, but I think that an industry organisation like our own has the capacity to get on the ground, establish, get a grip, get an understanding of what's needed and direct - give more I guess informed direction to the distribution of funding.

I think we need a place based solution is my view. I'm not saying (industry groups) don't have a role but they also have the same challenge as the NRM groups where if it's on the coast there's almost no Ag [force] memberships because they're extensive grazing but governments sort of, well we do, we expect industry to take some leadership on these things. But again their leadership is membership based and they don't see that they have a charter or an imprimatur to speak to people who aren't their members. Stakeholder 02

I think the issue though often with government is that many people we find don't want to talk to government officers. They want to talk - they're happier talking with not for profit community groups or maybe industry groups…It's people value that notion of just being at arm's length from government. Stakeholder 01

In addition to differing opinions regarding preferred delivery agents, there were also criticisms raised about the lack of communication and promotion of the Program. A number of landholders could not remember how they found out about the Program and there were concerns that other affected landholders may have missed out on the funding, because they did not know that it existed.

I think it's just making people a bit more aware of the funding that's available. Any funding that I've had or found has been - not a lot of people have known about it, put it that way. You have a conversation with the neighbours and they're like oh I didn't know about that. So probably a bit around that. Landholder 17 QMDC

I think a lot of people just didn’t know. If (name withheld) probably didn’t do it for me well, I mightn't even have known about it…. And then it's too late, the money, it's all gone. Before you know it, all the projects are - there's too many projects and they don't have enough money. Yeah, a lot people probably didn’t know about it.Landholder 08 FBA

Female 1: How did we stumble across it: just through talking to somebody else? Male 1: I don't really know. Female 1: We didn't pick it up in the papers or anything did we? Was it. Male 1: I don't know how we came across it. Female 1: I would think because we partook of the grant this time, because like I said we just stumbled across the information... Male 3: I think I seen it in the local paper

71


Female 2: Yeah. Female 1: Eventually, one day we saw it there. I don't know how many times it was advertised in the paper… Once we applied for it, it was fine wasn't it, yeah, once it was instituted… I couldn't complain a great deal, just that probably a lot of people probably missed out because they didn't even know it was available I would expect. Female 2: Actually I didn't even know about the funding and just that I got a phone call from (name withheld). They said look, we've got this money here and said I know you're doing work at the creek at the moment. Will this be of assistance? I went yes please. I won't say no. So that's how I come to know about it. Female 1: Because yeah, people under stress - thing like that, they don't always read the paper cover to cover do they? Focus Group SEQC

4.8.2 Eligibility criteria

Many landholders and stakeholder representatives mentioned the Program’s eligibility criteria, which were often seen as too restrictive, and in some cases, inequitable. In particular, the eligibility criteria relating to: participants; areas and activities.

I don’t care what the rules are but there needs to be some equity in the way that those funds were distributed. I don’t believe that they were delivered very equitable at all - in a very equitable way at all. Landholder 04 CA

For example, there was a perception by some respondents that you had to be a full time primary producer, with no off-farm income, to be eligible to participate in the Program. This was despite the fact that in some areas, property owners who were not involved in primary production received funding. It was thought by some that these landholders were mistaking the Program with the QRAA Special Disaster Assistance - Primary producer grants, which led them to think that they were not eligible to participate. Correspondingly, some industry representatives actively discouraged landholders from self-assessing their eligibility, to prevent mistakes like this from occurring.

We didn't even try there because my husband has an off farm job, see. So we're not wholly and solely dependent on our farm, but that doesn't mean to say what we're doing is - you know, like we breed cattle and one of those breeds of cattle is quite a rare breed throughout the world. So you know, it's - we just didn't even apply because we just thought well they're only going to turn around and say oh no, you can't have that. Landholder 02 CA

Neighbours don't get access to it because they're not earning an income from the property, so I've got a neighbour on either side of me that's like that. Female 1: Got income off farm... Male 1: Yeah. Focus Group SEQC

The eligibility too, some people missed out because they have off farm income as well, even though they own creek frontage properties, so they had their own frustrations. Or they might’ve had a particularly bad year so their partner who works off farm earned more money than what they did from their primary production activities so they didn’t qualify for funding. Stakeholder 14

People weren’t making a distinction between the fund recovery getting back to productivity that the NRM groups were helping with and the other fund recovery grants around which were about one-off things to farmers or long-term loans. They weren’t, you know, people involved were likely to be fine with those grants don’t make a huge distinction between some of the outcomes. So some of the expectations about what could be done, beginning with a perception that, you know, the recovery stuff that DNRM groups were doing would be very similar to the $25,000 grants they

72


got, you know. The one-off stuff they could just go and do repair work with it and it would be up to them what they did. They wouldn’t have to tell us anything else about what they wanted to do. Or worry about people finding out whether or not they'd actually done it or changed their mind and spent the money on something else. Stakeholder 17

As (name withheld) who was the chairman of the (industry name withheld) at that stage said, “Don't assess what you think” because he said we have worked hard to set this up for everyone. He said the people in the powers will assess whether you're eligible or not. Landholder 11 CA

In addition to who was eligible, there were also concerns that some badly affected areas did not receive funding through the Program, creating further tension between some regional NRM bodies and their communities.

There are isolated people that copped just as much damage and probably didn't have access to that funding. That's tricky - that's a tricky one to deal with, because you've got have some assessment and some criteria - so yeah maybe that needs to be looked at a little bit more I think. Stakeholder 12

One area that was a concern as part of the program - there was one catchment between (names withheld) that wasn't deemed to be part of … for some reason it just wasn't included in the funding possibility. So that just seemed quite bizarre and I guess late in the piece we were advised that “Oh well if you like you could maybe see if there's any project interest in that area”. By that time it was just way, way too late. People had moved on or done something different and that sort of thing and it was almost embarrassing to say hey there might be some assistance available for you if you want to get involved. Stakeholder 01

Within our region we had two specific areas identified as priorities. We had email correspondence that indicated that all the money except for a certain amount had to be spent in those two areas. So we did that and then we copped a bit of heat from our communities in those two lesser prioritised areas. We didn't really get the backing that we needed from the department [because they were politicians], that we were only allowed to spend X amount of dollars outside of those two priority areas. That sort of carried on right through the program which did create some difficulties with our partners in those areas. Stakeholder 04

There was considerable discussion around what constituted eligible activities. Additional works that the respondents wanted to have funded through the Program included: contour bank formation; dam wall restoration; and repairs to larger infrastructure (e.g. houses, sheds). However, it was conceded that the latter might not be appropriate through this Program, due to the potential for legal ramifications.

I would have liked to have done some contour banks, which we are doing in funding ourselves because we don’t meet the criteria. We actually believe that we - we believe the banks we're building are far superior to theirs but they're not covered in their criteria. Landholder 18 QMDC

There was confusion about what qualified for various levels of payment. So there was a lot of confusion about, can we pay a farmer for fencing to be replaced? Can we pay him or compensate him for application of manures or composts? It was fine lines to define sometimes the difference between what would have been a normal fertiliser and then what would have been something to remedy a result of the floods. Stakeholder 16

73


The unfortunate part, I thought, was where there were slips around buildings or infrastructure - as in sheds or houses or, in one case, a swimming pool - they would not go in there and do anything for them. They weren’t interested in buildings or anything like that, where it could have been - it could have saved houses, that type of thing. The reason was they didn't want to get involved in structural stuff, as in houses and buildings, that side of it… There's another place I can think of. It had - there were slips near the house, but nothing was done there. If it had have been near his orchard they would have done it, but not near the house. I think a lot of it was all legal aspects of if it did fail after something was done, they were in trouble then. Stakeholder 09

Correspondingly, there were calls for greater flexibility in the Program eligibility criteria, to allow for other activities to be funded, as more information about the specific needs of landholders and communities arose, in the aftermath of the Cyclone Oswald.

I was in that meeting where I heard the government say the focus primarily is on farm productivity. There should have been some flexibility built into that. I don't know whether there was, but there should have been, because the nature of these sorts of events is it can take quite a while for certain issues to pop up. There should have been that flexibility. Stakeholder 03

Perhaps also having the ability to renegotiate our contracts maybe a year in. Not completely change them but maybe change some of the focus a little bit or change some of the milestones. Because what I guess we found is that when we wrote the application having two days to do it - for us we hadn't experienced a flood this big. We put down what we thought was what we needed to but then when you get into actually doing it you realise that oh I didn't think about this or actually we're not going to meet those milestones. We thought it would be much easier to do that but we need to reduce the number or we need to change the focus slightly. So whilst we were able to move money changing the milestones required a lot more effort, and there was a lot more scrutiny whereas at the start it was inferred that it would be flexible, that there'd be some flexibility. So having a bit more flexibility would be good, and just appreciating that planning takes time. It's not something that we can just click our fingers and we know exactly where we want to work and how we want to do it. I can appreciate the government wanted to see results straight away and there was a lot of pressure, but unfortunately for a lot of our programs, planning's required to make sure that we do it right. Stakeholder 04

Most regional NRM bodies required participating landholders to do the activity upfront and then be reimbursed, in order to ensure that the works were undertaken. However, this was seen as biased against those landholders and enterprises with limited cash flow. In a related sentiment, it was also considered unfair to pay contractors for their time and the use of their machinery, but only fund fuel to landholders who supplied their own machinery and undertook the work themselves.

We never have worked on payment up front. We only ever pay on completion of work. I guess basically because if you pay them up front and they don't do the work then we're stuffed. We don't get any result….(However) we did offer partial payments so if their project involved fencing and earthworks, once they'd done the fencing we could go out and do a partial completion and paid them that money. That then gave them some money to do the earthworks or vice versa, we did offer that. But no, Stakeholder 10

I know one neighbour was participating. In fact like I said he was one of the fellows who was doing fencing in the same program that we did ours. In fact his fence would have joined on to ours, but he couldn't do his because he didn't have the cash and so he actually cancelled his project at the last minute - they kept coming through asking if we'd finished, finished and he just said “Oh, I didn't know I had to pay for it all

74


upfront”... It is a bit of disincentive in a way because you can't do the work - and I know that's how NRM groups all operate, that you have to do the work first and then get the payment behind, afterwards. But he didn't know that and it wasn't explained... He's got a bit of a distrust of any funding, any support funding anymore now. I think he's just burnt off with it because - like I said, with QRAA funding, they'll put money into your account straight away. Landholder 13 FBA

If there was money being handed out to contractors, well, then landholders should be allowed to fix his own stuff because it's his loss, and if there's - why should it all go to me? He should be able to make some money himself. That was some of the problem. A lot of the landholders weren't able to do it. They should have been allowed to, but they weren’t allowed to do it. They weren’t actually allowed to do some of their own work. They had to get - they were only given fuel, only allowed fuel money or something I think it was. Stakeholder 09

There were also complaints about the paperwork, expense and length of time taken to obtain the relevant permits to do certain works, particularly riverbank stabilisation activities.

Just the process to get it was a bit of a pain because I didn't realise some of the applications I had to go through to get permission to put the rocks over the riverbank. Landholder 06 BMRG

An unexpected challenge was the development application approval process required before riverbank stabilisation work could commence in the estuarine section of the (catchment). Approvals were required before work could commence from Dept of Environment & Heritage & Protection, Dept Natural Resources & Mines, North Qld Bulk Ports Authority, Dept of State Development, Infrastructure & Planning and council itself. This approval process held up the commencement of works for many months, and in some instances the fees associated with the development application was more costly than the actual works. Stakeholder 19

4.8.3 Timeliness and timeframes

Respondents were asked about both timeliness and timeframes. In particular, whether they thought the Program was delivered in a timely manner, and whether they thought the Program timeframes were appropriate. Many stakeholder representatives spoke about the long delay between when the Program was announced and when the regional NRM bodies received the funding from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM). Whilst inevitable bureaucracy was seen as the main reason for the delay, respondents were still frustrated, as this delay ultimately resulted in the postponement of urgent on-ground activities.

Look there was certainly a case that it took a while for DNRM to release the money to the NRM bodies…Well obviously one of the reasons is because this is the first time DNRM has offered a program like this. It just took them a while to be comfortable with the arrangements. I would be pretty certain that it would happen much quicker next time anyway because it’s been once. It's the first time it was tried going through the NRM bodies so all the accountability arrangements have been trialled and tested and are found to work. It just took a while for management in DNRM to be confident that that would be the case. Stakeholder 06

The initial delay upfront was a little bit frustrating. But at the same time we completely understood how that stuff happens. I mean it's just the way the wheels turn. Stakeholder 17

75


I think a lot of the delay was getting the guidelines - having all the information to be able to write our applications. Stakeholder 04

We were certainly waiting for some time before we actually got the nod to get out there and start working to develop our projects with people. Stakeholder 01

I believe it was just a delay in contracting from the government. We didn't receive our money. Oswald happened in, I don't know was it January, early in the year anyway… We didn't get our money until November so we didn't start the rollout on ground till then. That's a big, big delay. It's a long time. Stakeholder 10

According to the stakeholder representatives, shortly after Cyclone Oswald, at the request of government, the regional NRM bodies and their partners consulted with their communities to identify the activities that needed to be undertaken in their respective regions. This information was then promptly communicated back to government to inform the Program criteria and guidelines, but from their perspective, it then took an “inordinately” long time for DNRM to finalise the Program guidelines. As a consequence, several stakeholder representatives expressed exasperation at the changes to the Program criteria and the time lag between when the Program was first announced and when the money was actually released, as well as what they perceived to be onerous initial reporting requirements.

The field officers went out straight after (Cyclone Oswald) and did an immediate assessment of the damage like we were told to do. Sometimes we're involved a lot in this process but after the event straight away we were told that the government would have possible funding (so) go out and do the assessment of the damage to see how much is out there. How much money we'll need. We did that within a very short timeframe but then once that information was provided back it just sat there and nothing happened for so long. Stakeholder 10

I'd have to look back at diaries when we actually had our first lot of meetings and we all formed a plan, we had committees and people on to do what job. We had all our staff in place, if you like, to go and fit all the niches and we'd identified all the various regions around the state where we had to go and visit. We had preliminary meetings with farmers to say, “What is it you would like us to attend to, what are your concerns?” So we'd done all that, and then everything just went flat. Stakeholder 16

We had had meetings very early on in the piece and we're all - we've got our little committees and organisations of what we're going to do ready, our plans. Then we're just waiting and waiting and waiting. I think it was very slow coming through to them to say, yep, go ahead and implement the plans we've drawn up. I think many months passed, actually, and I think we were into the next calendar year, or probably much later on in that year before actually the green light came to implement the plans. Stakeholder 16

Going through the process of actually working out how much funding it was and where it was coming from and what the rules were which seemed to take an inordinate period of time and that sort of took a number of months. I just can't remember off the top of my head but it was a fairly lengthy period of time just to sort out how the government wanted the funding to be handled and who was dealing with it; then designing our program in the light of that and what we'd assessed was needed to be done. That was a fair bit of effort went that into that. I must admit we got a bit frustrated because it seemed to go around in circles for a while. This is a sort of side note in relation to we understood at that time that there was a certain amount of money being made available and that the initial amount that we were given to deal with was an initial amount. In our circumstances that was $X million but there was an indication that because the Federal government had promised an extra $5 million into

76


the system that there would be more money available for other activities but they were just dealing with the initial thing. Stakeholder 05

There was a lot of information that kept changing. They'd say, you know, you're not going to know what your region's allocated for. So we didn't know whether it was completely competitive and we could apply for $14 million and in reality we might only get $2 million. Once that was enough that was good, but there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing up to the point of them - to all of the information being released.... the second half of the program rolled out much smoother. Stakeholder 04

(The) delivery changed along the way, some of the things that we thought we were going to deliver changed… we initially went down the path of putting out an expression of interest to see what advice people needed - had all that ready to go, and that's where they said they wanted to go with it. Then that changed - no we're not going to do that - so there was a fair bit of work put into that. Stakeholder 12

We initially thought that we weren't allowed EOIs and things like that. So that's how we developed our projects and had to change them a couple of months in because EOIs were suddenly allowed and people were wondering why we weren't doing them. Stakeholder 04

There seemed to be some changing of goalposts throughout probably the first 12 months… We were under the impression that it was going to run a particular way, and then there was a change, and oh you can't do it like that, you have to do it like this, why haven't you done it like that. So I guess one specific example is that we were told that we weren't allowed to do expressions of interest. So that meant that we were actually targeting investment which is probably a better way to do it. But we were getting pressure because we weren't getting expressions of interest out. So that completely changed and we were then allowed to do expressions of interest, which was good, but it would have been nice to know at the start, not a couple of months into the program and then having this perception that what we were doing was in fact incorrect. Stakeholder 04

The reporting early on was enormous and garbage but later it got better…It was a lot of reporting and lots of justification. They wanted lots and lots of detail which wasn't really made clear to us at the start. It kept changing the templates. They couldn't pick the right template for a while so all the templates kept changing and that meant -because we'd contracted partners we'd have to go and change it with them and they'd get cranky. Stakeholder 04

For some stakeholder representatives, their frustration was further compounded by the extremely short timeframes they had to submit their applications, after the Program guidelines were finalised.

It took a while for the grant to become available and for us to know what's happening. But when that did happen we only had two days from when we had the full information to when the application was due to write an $X million application - luckily for us we'd been working with stakeholders beforehand to do other funding to try and work out how we wanted to do this program. But in the end because it was only two days for consultation really… Stakeholder 04

Another key challenge that we got when they decided to put out a request for growers to apply for, I think it was $10,000, it was all done very, very quickly. We had, I think it was about a week's time to actually spread the word out to growers to put their applications in to (organisation)… Yeah, I was very disappointed with the timeframe of how that came about. Stakeholder 03

77


Furthermore, it appeared that the source and reason for the Program delay wasn’t well communicated to the general public, resulting in unmet expectations on all sides, and in some cases, adversely impacting the relationship between regional NRM bodies and their communities.

I appreciate that (the guidelines) take time to generate. But then there was a massive time lag before we actually got the money…Lots of pressure and people saying that we've got money and go and see (organisation) and then we were stuck in the middle saying actually we haven't got any money yet… The energy it took in the first probably eight months [after the flood] for our business for my CEO, myself, and our team leader who actually rolled the program out for us was huge. It consumed so much of our time and a lot of it was justifying why we hadn't done work, so why we hadn't moved so quickly when it was - we didn't have the funding or you needed to do planning and that just wasn't understood. Stakeholder 04

There had been a certain amount of expectation set and that was probably the hardest thing we had to deal with was the way the program worked is it set public expectation. We couldn’t deal with that expectation because we didn't have the money. Stakeholder 05

There was some issues around managing expectations both from ministers and the people out in the paddock and the community. Sometimes the regions were stuck in the middle of having to deliver against a set of guidelines whilst having ministerial expectations that sort of didn’t totally align with those guidelines. Stakeholder 08

I know at an operational level the NRM group's really struggled with the accountability of government. I actually don't know a way around that because while it is a disaster and they want things, government wants things done in a hurry, it's also public funds…I think there's just a natural tension that's going to be there which is do things really quickly but make sure you account for everything. Stakeholder 02

I mean one of the issues that was a big burr in the saddle for the NRM groups was just how long it took for their contracts to get signed and how long it took for the money to get to them. From sitting inside government, I mean, the timeframes from my experience weren't excessive. They were long, but we're dealing with different levels of government and all that stuff…I think there was unrealistic expectations from the NRM groups about how quickly government will get contracts to them and get stuff mobilised about how quickly these things could be done. There was enormous political pressure to go out and fix things. Stakeholder 02

It's as if we weren't very empathetic with the farmers out there - we sort of got all this going initially and then we just left them blind. That reflected (poorly) on some of the NRM groups, and (landholders) not want to hear that, we haven't had the green light from the state or feds. They're not interesting in that, they just said, “Well, what are you doing? You came to see us and we had these meetings and now we haven't heard from you for months, so what's happening?” Stakeholder 16

One stakeholder representative queried why the regional NRM bodies “didn’t have enough trust” in DNRM to go ahead and organise for the projects to begin in their region, based on a commitment from government. However, a couple of other respondents spoke about the legal risk that not for profit organisations such as regional NRM bodies, have in potentially trading insolvent, if they authorise work prior to signing contracts and receiving the funding.

I'm not sure why it took so long to get started. It was quite a while before money flowed, and that seemed to result in the regional bodies not starting anything until they got the cheque in the mail … it was disappointing that the regional bodies didn't have enough trust that they would get the money to be able to start. They could have

78


started soon after agreements were made rather than having to physically wait until the cheque was in the mail. So that slowed things down initially, and to some extent a lot of the work needs to be done quickly, so leaving six months or more, I think… a lot of the issues (had) already passed by then…. I don't see why it took so long for the money to flow from the state government to the regional bodies, but I also think that there was no reason - they seemed to dig their heels in and say well, we're not going to do anything until the cheque is in the bank. Whereas I thought once there was an agreement signed or whatever, that they could start and they should have enough faith in the state government to say we know we're going to get the money so we'll start the work and we know the money will come. Stakeholder 18

We knew in principle that funding would be available… but we didn't know how it was going to be distributed or what the guidelines were, or what it was to be used for or who in fact was even going to be responsible for the distribution of that money… Stakeholder 13

We didn't go out and start contracting work, landholders to do works until we had the money basically because we can't contract until we've got the money - yeah, we can't contract until we're guaranteed that we've got the funds. Stakeholder 10

Some organisations I understand went ahead and spent some money. But the issue when, depending on your different business structures, your organisation that's like ours with a limited liability company you cannot start making any financial commitments until you actually have a legitimate legal contract in place. We actually at one of the review meetings we got criticised for not starting anyway. The reason given was that some other groups did. I think there was a bit of confusion around that from the government perspective or some people in the government sector were under the impression that some areas were probably doing more than they really were. I think they just didn't understand. Also the different organisations have different legal structures. The consequences for an incorporated group are very different to the consequences for a limited liability company. Like I said, you know, making a legal financial commitment when you don’t actually have that income legally secured through a binding contract. Stakeholder 17

Other comments concerning the Program timeframes related to extending the period of time for the completion of projects, particularly in those cases where weather conditions, such as excessive rainfall, localised flooding, or ongoing drought, interfered with the ability of landholders and contractors to undertake the funded work.

I've got three catch dams out on the property I've got at Goondiwindi. But you can't clean them out until they're dry. When they're dry, basically the funding has gone. Do you get where I'm coming from? Landholder 11 CA

Their paperwork held us up a lot of times because the paperwork took a lot longer to organise than it did to do the job. In some respects it cost a lot of money because when we were ready to go they said, no, we can't go because the paperwork's not done. That was very annoying because then we got into the rainy season and then we - then they got their paperwork done, it had already rained. The river had another flood and we weren’t able to get into it. That part of it was shocking actually. It was very annoying. Stakeholder 09

The actual on ground works were rushed at the end - not that they weren't done properly it was just they were exposed to - during the summer when it was the worst time it could've been done - to be honest. It was to meet the deadline. Everyone knew that it really should've started just before winter and be finishing now, but they wouldn't have been funded had they not completed it before May…If Cyclone Marcia didn't come through it might not have been an issue, but that's what held us up

79


because there was all this damage and heavy rains, and you can't work - you can't laser level in that. Stakeholder 12

4.8.4 Cost effectiveness

Respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program was cost effective or represented good value for money. There was a mixed response to this question. As described in section 4.5, funding agricultural producers to get back into production faster was, for the most part, seen as an effective way to help not only producers, but the broader economy.

However, a couple of stakeholder representatives acknowledged that it was difficult to determine if the Program itself was cost effective, given there was insufficient data to measure and calculate it properly.

I think it was generally delivered reasonably efficiently, so I think the money did end up on the ground rather than - I don't think there's a lot chewed up in cost and things like that. I think it was reasonably efficient, from what I can tell, from that point of view… That's a very difficult thing to judge. I think the range of activities funded, if you like, the range of different sort of activities where the money was spent, I think some were certainly more cost-effective than others, but it's very difficult to put a cost-effectiveness metric over an environmental recovery - what was largely an environmental recovery program… Stakeholder 18 If you're asking me is there value for money out of this I couldn’t answer that and that is a weakness of recovery programs under NDRRA. It's very hard to measure what would have happened if this assistance hadn't been provided. It's quite likely that a lot of these places might have had to - some of these areas adjacent and some of these river bends might have had to be abandoned or no longer returned to agriculture or be at risk of further erosion and subsequent events. How do you measure the cost benefit of that? Well from a financial management perspective I think they seem to be pretty well done but again it's one of those things, as far as did these x dollars' worth of activity produce more than x dollars of benefit I don't know. I would hope so. I would expect so but I think it would be a very subjective measurement. Stakeholder 06

Other respondents were more critical - they did not think the Program was as cost effective as it could have been. In particular, there were concerns regarding the employment of expensive specialist consultants (many of who were not local, and thought to be unfamiliar with the region), without an adequate tendering process, to provide “advice only” services.

Most of the money was wasted on consultants rather than direct recovery… It would be interesting the procurement of those consultants, how that was undertaken as well, whether those things were put out for tender or given the amounts of money that potentially those consultants would have earnt. Landholder 04 CA

In terms of getting bang for buck, so much more could have been done in that respect. It could have been better value for money… My first concern came when (organisation) proposed an idea and I had to set them on the right path. They wanted to basically bring in outside businesses to conduct lots of soil sampling of the affected blocks. I had to set them straight on that because they were potentially bringing in a third party service provider from another region that was - could have easily been done with local businesses in the region. First up they basically were impacting on the business capacity of third party service providers in the region. I set them straight on that path… I think it was just one service provider that they contracted to do all the workshops. Yet there's two or three significant businesses in the region that could have delivered the same information. I don't even know if they put that out to tender

80


or if they just went straight to one and said we want you to deliver this. Stakeholder 03

(Organisation) engaged the services of additional personnel who were not local. They kind of brought them into the area for the purpose of this. They therefore lacked some familiarity with the region and they also didn't have established relationships with any of the landholders. Where - where there are a number of industry personnel in a lot of industry organisations in the region that already are very familiar with our landscape and our agricultural activities and have established relationships with local landholders. Therefore would have - I believe if they had have engaged their services - seconded them or subcontracted to the industry organisation that employed them. Or in some way engaged their services there wouldn't have been the delay in - it wouldn't have been so hard to prioritise. It wouldn't have been as drawn out a process trying to get started with something… I thought there was enough - there are enough people that work all the time in the area in various agribusinesses that would have been able to provide the oversight assistance that these guys provided without having to do as much background research and - they took a long time to become familiar with the landscape, whereas there are people that are here all the time that are very familiar with the landscape. How our irrigation systems work and why they work the way they work and what's the history behind a particular agribusiness using a certain kind of irrigation on his property. The fellow up the road uses a different one - stuff like that where background knowledge helps. Stakeholder 13

However, in contrast, one stakeholder representative, who worked as a contractor, spoke about the rigorous tender process that he had to undertake to receive work through the Program.

I know, from a personal point of view, we had to go and tender or quote on these jobs, had to receive three quotes on the work. We had to do it all properly. There was no - it was all above board. (Organisation) made sure that that was all done correctly, and that's to their full credit for doing that. The bookwork side, there was no skulduggery, so to speak. We had to win the job on our own merits, and then the landholder had the final say as to who they wanted. I think that's quite (appropriate) because the landholder must have the say for who they want on their property. It's no good getting a contractor in that they don't want there. You don't invite a plumber into your house who's done the wrong thing by you in the past. You don't want him back in your house, pretty much, that's what I'm saying. If he's ripped you off in the past you don't want him back - simple. Stakeholder 09

Another stakeholder representative spoke about the sheer scale of damage incurred by some landholders, as a consequence of Cyclone Oswald.

The thing that caught us out a few times was the scale, we just didn’t have enough money to actually entertain the thought of some of the damage that was beyond our resources available to help people. That was a bit frustrating…It wasn’t necessarily spent in conjunction with the other Cyclone Oswald program, the funding. So the landholders might just keep doing an unrelated project or not look at it as a reach of the whole and do something at their place that stops abruptly at the neighbour’s place because the neighbour had spent their NDRRA funding differently… There was one particular farm that we got some quotes to put his place back in order and get him access. The earthworks alone were over $600,000 and that’s without reveg and stabilisation and then repercussions of the creek as well. Stakeholder 14

In addition, there were questions from a few landholders regarding the proportion of funding offered to a landholder, relative to the amount of money that was distributed through the Program. In these cases it was speculated that too much money might have been taken up in administration by the regional NRM bodies.

81


So if they had $1 million or half a million dollars or whatever there might have only been 25 people. Just very roughly, there’s half a million dollars and they had 25 people is $20,000 each property roughly. What they were offering me was probably $500 worth. Divide 15 by 250 people or 300 people. There’s $50,000 per person. I’m not saying that each person is going to get a cheque for $50,000 but [shit], some money’s been wasted somewhere. So it’s a hugely significant amount of money has not got to where it was intended. If you do that simple calculation, at $50,000 per property and I’m not saying it would have worked out on that and I’ve got $500 worth of (funding) offered to me. What’s that, one per cent? Landholder1

As I say, by the time you go around buying lots of vehicles, have a big building, have a big rent, it's marvellous how much your money must be disappearing… They're bandying around money amounts that are scary, if you can understand that? I looked at the project invoice when I received it and I just thought someone's having a joke with me. Landholder2

(Regional NRM body), might be just a little bit, I don’t know, top heavy so maybe there’s too much money going off to pay the consultants and pay the (staff) - you’ve got so many layers there in that organisation. The money has to come from somewhere to fund those things. Landholder3

If we're using taxpayer's money to fund these things, then we have to be very accountable I believe, we need to be accountable. I don't think people should just be given money too willingly, I think you need to be very accountable for it and the money has to go to the ground. That's where (organisation) fail very, very poorly. If we could set up some a new (organisation) that people could work with, that have got the money to the ground would be fantastic... the number one thing is that we need to be accountable and the money needs to be going onto the ground… There's a huge amount of waste in (organisation), the money does not get to the ground. We got a little bit, we got some funding for a little bit of fencing, but (organisation) will say that I think they actually record that 80 per cent of the money gets to the ground. They're dead set lying there, it is definitely less than 20 per cent. Landholder4

4.8.5 Final outcome

Respondents were asked about whether they were happy with the final outcome of the Program, specifically if the funding had enabled them to do the activities that they wanted to do, to return to production as early as possible.

As discussed in section 4.1, many people appeared to be happy with the concept of the Program.

Facilitator: So were you able to use the funding for what you wanted to use it for? Interviewee: Yes. Facilitator: Were you happy with the final result of the project? Interviewee: Yes, yes. Landholder 01 CA

1 The number and location of this landholder has been removed to preserve their anonymity




82


However, as also described in section 4.2, the 6-9 month delay in the regional NRM bodies receiving funding from the state government, meant that many landholders had already undertaken the works they needed to, to get back into production, and hence, used the money they received to undertake activities that were less urgent or of a lower priority.

Interviewee: What’s the name of the program, On Farm Productivity? Facilitator: Yeah. Interviewee: They just missed the whole point of that. Or maybe they didn’t miss it from their perspective but to get the benefit of that you’re looking for some immediate works, restoring fencing and restoring infrastructure, troughs and tanks and watering points and things like that and irrigation. None of that was able to be funded and I was pretty peeved to be honest. Landholder 04 CA

83


5 Comparison of survey and interview results

A greater proportion of the survey respondents (64%) were landholders, compared with the interviews (58%).

Generally the results from the online survey corroborated those of the focus group and telephone interviews, with the latter providing greater context, more in-depth responses and in some cases, additional insights. This was particularly the case for questions regarding the impact of the Program on the health and wellbeing of the Program participants, as well as its contribution to the recovery and ongoing resilience of the broader environment, economy and society.

However, there were some important exceptions, in particular, with respect to whether the Program assisted landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner. Feedback regarding the administrative aspects of the Program also conflicted, where the findings from the survey and interviews mostly contradicted each other.

For the most part, the results from the survey were overwhelmingly positive about the Program. In contrast, more criticisms were raised in the telephone interviews. Furthermore, an analysis of neutral or negative responses from both the surveys and the interviews, suggest that these responses tended to be disproportionally provided by non-landholders. This suggests that landholders’ perspectives about the Program were somewhat different to those of non-landholders (or stakeholder representatives).

5.1 Overall a successful Program

Overall a successful Program, however there were delays

Whilst the survey didn’t explicitly ask whether the Program was successful, an extremely high majority of respondents thought the program was both worthwhile (88%) and effective (81%).

Correspondingly, several interview respondents thought that, overall, the Program was successful. However, the 6-9 month time lag in the roll out of the funding to regional NRM bodies had an impact on the perceived overall achievement of the Program, with some stakeholder representatives stating that the protracted timelines resulted in the Program not being as successful as it could have been.

Similarly, survey comments from regional NRM body representatives indicated that the delay was an issue - “… This one of the worst programs I have ever seen. 9 months after the flood we received the funding”. Nonetheless, the majority of survey respondents (63%) thought the Program funding was provided in a timely manner, as discussed in section 5.8.3.

Not all the landholder respondents had participated in the Program

Upon interviewing, it became apparent that not all of the landholder contacts provided by the regional NRM bodies had actually participated in the Program. This corresponds with the survey, in which 13% of the landholder respondents had not received funding or assistance through the Program. Whilst it is unclear how these landholder details were included in the participant list provided by the regional NRM bodies, the research team nonetheless decided to include these perspectives in this study. In the interviews, in particular, they delivered alternative perspectives into landholder perceptions of who was eligible to participate in the Program, as well as what areas and activities should be eligible. In fact, it is recommended that any future evaluations of this Program, or any similar initiatives, should deliberately seek to include feedback from non-participants, as they can often provide valuable insights.

84


Confusion or too long ago to remember

It should be noted that a few of the landholders who were interviewed for this study appeared to be confused, or indicated that it was just too long ago to remember, about aspects of both Cyclone Oswald itself, and the specific details of the Program. It was also thought that in some cases, the Program was mistaken with QRAA Special Disaster Assistance - Primary producer grants. Because the survey did not allow further exploration beyond the questions asked, it is possible that the same confusion was present among the survey respondents.

5.2 Contribution to agricultural production

The main objective of this study was to determine what contribution the Program had to agricultural production and in particular, whether the funding had assisted landholders to recommence, or return to full agricultural production in the targeted areas earlier than would have been possible without it.

Fifty-nine percent of all respondents and 93% of all landholders who participated in the survey identified themselves as mainly using their land for agricultural production. Similarly, the majority of landholders who participated in the interviews also identified themselves as agricultural producers.

When asked, a very high majority of survey respondents (81%) believe that the Program contributed to the broader community by assisting landholders to return to full agricultural production sooner. In addition, 68% of landholders who were funded thought the Program enabled them to get back on their feet faster, while 45% agreed that the funding and/or assistance they received helped them to earn an income.

Relevant agricultural activities funded through the Program included: funding for new fencing and repair or restoration of existing fencing (29%) and soil conservation and land management assistance (14%).

Many interview respondents also believed that the Program assisted in various aspects of their agricultural enterprises. However, due to the time lag in the rollout of the Program many stakeholder representatives thought that the majority of agricultural landholders had already undertaken the work they needed to do, to get back into full agricultural production sooner. Furthermore, they thought that when these landholders were finally able to access funding, they often spent it on activities that did not necessarily get them back in to production faster, or were not a high priority, and in some cases, would not necessarily have been undertaken, if the dollars had not been provided. Correspondingly, there were criticisms about the types of activities that were funded, with some landholders arguing that there were activities that would have helped them to return to production faster, that were not considered eligible, under the Program.

In addition, some stakeholder representatives cited examples where the time lag in the distribution of the funding, combined with paperwork requirements, caused a few landholders to withdraw from the Program altogether. In some cases these withdrawals occurred because of a general frustration with the perceived inefficiency of the Program, but in other cases it was due to change in their personal circumstances in the aftermath of the cyclone (e.g. changing their business plan).

5.3 Contribution to riparian restoration

It should be noted that not every landholder who participated in the Program was a primary producer. Whilst it is not clear what percentage of the landholders who participated in the

85


Program were not agricultural producers, 5% of the landholders who participated in the survey identified themselves as landholders whose land was NOT primarily used for agricultural production.

Correspondingly, not all the work undertaken was related to primary production. Furthermore, it appears that in many cases agricultural enterprises were funded to undertake environmental restoration works (such as riparian or stream bank recovery efforts), as opposed to activities that were directly related to returning to full agricultural production.

In fact, over 50% of the survey landholder respondents were funded for rehabilitation or stabilisation of stream banks or riparian areas. This compares with claims made in the interviews that in some regions, the majority of the works funded through the Program related to riparian restoration.

Similarly, the majority of survey respondents (64%) believed that the Program contributed to the broader community by enhancing the water quality, or the health and stability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

In addition to riparian restoration, survey respondents agreed that the Program contributed to other environmental benefits to varying degrees, including: helping to prevent further damage, or erosion, on land (80%); increasing the safety and amenity of the area, as a result of disaster-related debris on land and water being mitigated (45%) and ensuring that excess debris, resulting from flooding, has been used beneficially (28%).

5.4 Personal impact on landholders

Landholders who were interviewed were specifically asked about the impact of Cyclone Oswald, and the influence that participation in the Program had on them.

A few described the psychological stress associated with Cyclone Oswald and previous floods. Similarly, many stakeholder representatives spoke about how some landholders were in a state of shock and did not appear to know what to do, nor have the capacity to work out what they needed from the Program, in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone.

However, landholders who were interviewed also expressed sentiments of appreciation, gratitude and relief, as a consequence of participating in the Program. This corresponds highly with the survey results, in which the vast majority of landholders felt supported (92%), grateful (85%) happier (82%), and relieved (67%), as a result of participating in the Program.

In addition, a few stakeholder representatives who were interviewed thought that some landholders just appreciated having someone come to talk to them and offer advice, irrespective of whether they received financial assistance.

Despite this, only 50% of the survey respondents agreed that the Program contributed to the broader community by improving the health and well-being of residents.

The telephone respondents also thought landholders were talking about mental health issues a lot more than they used to. Correspondingly, a couple of respondents spoke about the importance of direct delivery organisations, having adequate training in mental health first aid, particularly as it was thought that there were not enough psychological support services for the general community, in the aftermath of Cyclone Oswald.

86


5.5 Contribution to broader economy

Telephone interview respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program contributed to the economic recovery of the local community. In particular, whether they thought there were any flow-on effects to other neighbours or small businesses. Both landholders and stakeholder representatives accredited the Program with positively contributing to the local economy. In addition, they also spoke about how assisting agricultural producers was a strategic and effective way of creating flow on effects to the rest of the community.

Examples of the economic contribution the Program provided to the community included employing consultants for specialised advice (e.g. agronomy, geomorphology, soil testing) and local contractors for specialised activities (e.g. dozer driving, excavating, road grading, laser levelling, manure spreading, fencing). However, even those landholders who undertook the work themselves spoke about how the funding enabled them to purchase equipment and materials from local suppliers (e.g. fencing, rocks, fuel, seed), thereby having a flow on effect to the local economy.

This corresponds with the survey results in which the majority of landholders agreed that the funding and/or assistance they received through the Program assisted them to employ local service providers (52%), and/or purchase local materials and supplies (65%). Similarly, a large majority of all survey respondents (79%) believed that the Program contributed to the broader community by supporting the local economy (e.g. small businesses).

However, there were also some criticisms of the use of non-local specialists “… some of the specialists were brought in on project related contracts, thus not employing or contracting locals”. Likewise, a few of the interview participants raised concerns regarding the employment of expensive specialist consultants. This is discussed further in section 5.8.4.

5.6 Contribution to broader society

Interview respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program contributed to the broader society. There were mixed replies to this question, with some respondents thinking there were limited or no social benefits of the Program. It appeared that a number of landholders who were interviewed were not even aware of whether their neighbours or others in their area participated in the Program. Relatedly, the highest response of landholders to the survey statement that the funding and/or assistance they received through the Program strengthened their relationships with other landholders was a neutral response (i.e. neither agree nor disagree) at 48%.

In contrast, a number of stakeholder representatives spoke about the positive contribution that workshops associated with the Program provided, as they created an opportunity for landholders to get together. Similarly, one landholder who completed the survey commented: “Programs to assist with recovery after these natural disasters is essential to help the community towards recovery by making people feel cared about as well as the practical financial assistance for recovery”. As a consequence, there was a call for more social aspects to be incorporated into this Program, and similar disaster related initiatives, in the future.

In addition, interview respondents spoke about how a number of relationships were formed or strengthened as a direct consequence of the Program. These included relationships between individual s (e.g. neighbours helping neighbours); between individuals and organisations and landholders (e.g. landholders and NRM bodies); and between organisations (e.g. NRM bodies and mental health service providers, agricultural industry groups, local government, state and federal government). Similarly, a small majority of

87


respondents (57%) believed that the Program contributed to the broader community by enhancing the social connections between individuals and organisations.

5.7 Contribution to ongoing resilience

Telephone respondents were asked about whether they thought participation in the Program contributed to improving theirs and other landholders’ ongoing resilience to future cyclone and flood events. Their responses varied.

It appeared that in some cases the funding was deliberately used to improve the property and increase its resilience to future natural disasters. However, in other cases, it appeared that the Program funding was used to restore infrastructure to exactly as it was, prior to Cyclone Oswald. Similarly, one Queensland Government agency representative who participated in the survey commented: “Don't just rebuild what was there but rather look hard at what is the best use for the flood affected country”.

Interestingly, and perhaps relatedly, only 38% of landholders agreed that they felt better prepared, as a result of participating in the Program. In addition, the largest response to whether participation in the Program had made landholders feel safer, was neutral (neither agree nor disagree) or unsure, at 41%.

Nonetheless, the majority of landholders surveyed (58%) agreed that the funding and/or assistance they received through the Program supported them to prepare for future flood events. Similarly, an even greater majority (72%) of all the respondents agreed that the Program contributed to the broader community by enabling landholders and properties to cope with future cyclone and flood events.

Furthermore, there was a general acknowledgement in both the interviews and the survey that a lot more needed to be done to improve resilience, now and into the future, with one contractor suggesting: “Don't treat them as once-off events. The whole program has to be regarded as a continuum of events and community members will need to be kept up to date, reminded, encouraged to think wider than the next bank payment”.

5.8 Feedback regarding the Program administration

5.8.1 Delivery

The telephone respondents were asked if they were happy with the delivery of the Program, and in particular using regional NRM bodies as the delivery agent. Whilst there were a few questions regarding the perceived difference in capability between the various regional NRM bodies, and calls for greater collaboration with different stakeholder groups (especially industry groups, local government and state agricultural departments), for the most part the regional NRM bodies were considered the appropriate organisations to deliver the Program, particularly because of their established contacts and environmental and agricultural remit. No comparisons can be made with the online survey responses, as no explicit question was asked regarding the Program delivery.

Nevertheless, there were also criticisms raised about the lack of communication and promotion of the Program. Several landholders could not remember how they found out about the Program and there were concerns that other affected landholders may have missed out on the funding, because they did not know that it existed. This corresponds with open-ended comments received in the survey, with one landholder complaining: “We did not know of the program nor received any funding… The questions must be asked, Why didn't severely TC impacted farmers get to know of the program?... No one told us of this extra assistance”. Similarly, a consultant commented that the “Scheme needed better publicity”.

88


5.8.2 Eligibility criteria

Many interviewees discussed the Program’s eligibility criteria, which were often seen as too restrictive, and in some cases, inequitable. Specific criticisms were made of eligibility criteria relating to: participants; areas and activities. In particular, there appeared to be confusion around who was eligible for the funding. Correspondingly, there were calls for greater flexibility in all aspects of the Program eligibility criteria.

Although one survey respondent, an industry representative, provided the following comment: “Eligibility criteria were not resolved quickly so subsequent identification of suitable projects was not timely”, the majority of survey respondents thought the eligibility criteria for projects were clear enough (65%) and wide-ranging enough (61%).

5.8.3 Timeliness and timeframes

Respondents were asked about the Program’s timeliness and timeframes, in particular whether they thought the Program was delivered in a timely manner, and whether the timeframes were flexible enough.

Again, several stakeholder representatives spoke about the long delay between when the Program was announced and when the regional NRM bodies received the funding from DNRM. Whilst inevitable bureaucracy was seen the reason for the delay, they were frustrated, as this ultimately resulted in the postponement of (urgent) on-ground activities. Correspondingly, one survey respondent commented on: “Making funding available earlier or making funding retrospective. The funding came too late for most enterprises who relied on the land (especially fencing) for their business”. In addition, a regional NRM body representative reflected that: “Repair of the natural system should be seen in the same light as emergency planning for people. Needs to be part of the first response considerations”.

Nonetheless, the majority of the survey respondents thought the Program was well organised (76%), and efficient (67%), and that the funding was provided in a timely matter (65%).

In addition to the delays, interviewees spoke about the need to extend the timeframes for the completion of projects, particularly in those cases where weather conditions, such as excessive rainfall, localised flooding, or ongoing drought, interfered with the ability of landholders and contractors to undertake the work that they were funded to do.

Similarly, one regional NRM body representative did comment that there was: “Insufficient time (2 years) for such extensive damage and economic hardship. Insufficient time to engage the community effectively and address priorities”. Nevertheless, an even greater majority (73%) of survey respondents thought the contract timelines were flexible enough.

There also appeared to be a divergence in opinions regarding whether the paperwork and reporting requirements were fair. Despite agricultural landholders being renowned for disliking paperwork and some stakeholder representatives indicating the initial reporting was onerous, a large majority (72%) believed that the paperwork and reporting requirements of the Program were fair. However, further examination of the findings revealed that a disproportionally large number of regional NRM body representatives disagreed with that statement. Upon reflection it seems that the regional NRM body representatives may have been commenting on their reporting requirements, as opposed to that of the landholder participants. This suggests that in some cases landholders’ perspectives about the Program were somewhat different to those of non-landholders (or stakeholder representatives), in particular the regional NRM bodies. It might also reflect why the questions relevant to the landholders’ experience of the Program, were for the most part, overwhelmingly positive, but more criticisms were raised in the open format questions and the telephone interviews,

89


where respondents had an opportunity to provide more feedback about the program, from their perspectives.

5.8.4 Cost effectiveness

Telephone respondents were asked about whether they thought the Program was cost effective or represented good value for money. There was a mixed response to this question. Funding agricultural producers through the Program was seen by some as an economic stimulus package and an effective way to help not only producers, but the broader economy, due to the flow on effects to local contractors and suppliers. Nevertheless a couple of stakeholder representatives acknowledged that it was difficult to determine if the Program itself was cost effective, given there was insufficient data to measure and calculate it properly.

Other respondents think the Program was as cost effective as it could have been. In particular, there were concerns regarding the employment of costly specialist consultants, many of who were not local and therefore less familiar with the region to provide “advice only” services. This corresponds with one survey respondent’s statement that “A significant percentage of the funding was used to engage specialists who provided "advice" to landholders, not "funding" to repair flood damaged properties and assist return to agricultural production”.

One stakeholder representative spoke about the sheer scale of damage incurred by some landholders, as a consequence of Cyclone Oswald. Similarly, a survey respondent wrote: “We suffered $700k damages, and had both State & Federal Ag Ministers on farm in the first week, and got a $25k grant!”

Furthermore, there were questions from a few landholders regarding the proportion of funding offered to landholders, relative to the $15 million that was distributed through the Program. Correspondingly, almost all respondents surveyed accessed less than $30,000 of funding, with over a third accessing less than $10,000.

Despite these concerns, a considerable majority of respondents surveyed (75%) believed that the Program represented good value for money.

5.8.5 Final outcome

Landholder interviewees were asked about whether they were happy with the final outcome of the Program, specifically if the funding had enabled them to do the activities that they wanted to do to.

As previously discussed in section 4.1, many people appeared to be happy with the concept of the Program. However, as described in section 4.2, because of the 6-9 month delay in the Program, many landholders had already undertaken the most urgent works that they needed to, to get back into production.

Nonetheless, a large majority (77%) of the landholders surveyed, when asked whether the funding received through the Program allowed them to do the activities they wanted to do, answered in the affirmative.

90


6 Recommendations

The following section makes several recommendations for ways to improve the Program for the future. Many of these recommendations came directly from the study respondents (i.e. the landholders and stakeholder representatives) themselves. The remainder are based on the study results and related literature.

6.1 Establish institutional arrangements and develop guidelines prior to a disaster, where possible

Whilst overall the Program was successful, many respondents thought its effectiveness was hampered by the long delay (estimated at between 6-9 months) in the roll out of the Program guidelines and subsequent funding to regional NRM bodies. Correspondingly, there were many suggestions made regarding establishing the institutional arrangements and guidelines of the Program, prior to a disaster, where it is possible to do so.

Specifically, there were calls to develop guidelines that can be applied to any disaster, including: terms and conditions; reporting needs and requirements; roles and responsibilities; and protocols and processes.

Another suggestion involved the completion of a skills audit and subsequent skills database, of all stakeholders, including landholders, small business operators, industry representative bodies, regional NRM bodies, local government and state government agencies. It was thought that such a database would enable communities to respond more quickly in the aftermath of a natural disaster, as well as avoid replication of response activities.

6.2 Improve administrative aspects of the Program

6.2.1 Increase communication and promotion of the Program

Feedback from both the online survey and the telephone interviews suggest that some people did not know, or were confused, about the Program. In particular, it appeared that it may have been mistaken with the QRAA Special Disaster Assistance - Primary producer grants. Consequently, better communication and promotion of the Program is required, with clear guidelines and eligibility criteria (especially related to participants, locations and activities), for the general community.

6.2.2 Improve equity by expanding the eligibility criteria and extending the completion timeframes

Results from this study indicate that there was both confusion and frustration regarding the Program eligibility criteria, which was seen as too restrictive, and in some cases, inequitable. Correspondingly, several suggestions were made about ways to clarify and expand the eligibility criteria, particularly with regards to participants, locations and activities. These included:

Participants

Clearly define who is eligible. Several landholders thought they were not eligible because they had other income sources and as a consequence they did not apply for the Program.

91


Take into account the area of land and length of creek frontage when determining how much funding to give. Landholders experienced different degrees of damage, and as a result some thought that not everyone should be given the same amount of funding.

Fund landholders for their time. Landholders were not eligible to receive funding for their time; however, some respondents thought this was inequitable, when contractors were paid to do similar work (e.g. earth works, fencing).

Locations

Allow entire regions to apply for funding, not just specific catchments. In some regions, only the most damaged catchments were eligible to apply for funding; however, this was seen as inequitable to those landholders who experienced severe damage, but fell outside of the catchment boundaries.

Activities

Expand the eligibly criteria to include other activities such as building contour banks, mending dams, repairing internal/private roads and reconstructing roads on creek crossings.

In addition to the eligibility criteria, there were also calls to extend individual project completion timeframes, especially if there were adverse weather conditions.

Allow landholders an extension to their project completion timeframes, especially if adverse weather events (e.g. cyclones, floods, droughts) interfered with their ability to meet the project deadlines.

There was also a realisation that most areas had not experienced an event like Cyclone Oswald before, and the extent of damage it caused.

Allow regional NRM bodies the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances by enabling them to renegotiate their contracts (including activities and timeframes) after 1 year. There had not been an event like Cyclone Oswald before, and in some cases it took 12 months to work out whether some of the activities would even be feasible, let alone likely to be done within the project timeframe.

6.2.3 Provide the money earlier and increase the variety of funding arrangements

The single most frequent suggestion raised by the respondents was to establish the guidelines earlier and provide the money sooner to regional NRM bodies, and as a consequence, landholders.

In addition, there were calls to increase the range of funding arrangements available to landholders. Suggestions included establishing an emergency “no regrets” fund, and providing upfront, progressive and/or retrospective payment options for contracts.

Emergency “no regrets” fund Several suggestions were made about creating an emergency fund, with a pre-established list of “no regrets” activities or dollars, which is available to eligible landholders immediately after an event. It was thought that $5000 per landholder or property would be sufficient, as it would be “enough to buy 1 pallet of electrical wire and a sling of pickets, so at the very least (you) can string the wire up between the trees (and) section off cattle in a safe part of the paddock”.

Upfront, progressive and/or retrospective payment options for contracts The funding arrangements differed between each regional NRM body, based on their financial reserves. Nonetheless, it appeared that the majority of regional bodies provided

92


funding to contracted landholders after the works were completed, and proof was supplied (e.g. receipts, photos). However, this was seen as too restrictive by many respondents, and correspondingly, there were calls to increase the variety of funding arrangements available to include upfront, progressive and/or retrospective payment options.

Upfront payments were seen as a way to include those landholders who did not have the cash flow to pay for the works without receiving the funding first.

Retrospective payments which reimbursed landholders for eligible activities, when provided with sufficient proof (e.g. receipts, date stamped before and after photos), was seen as a way to circumvent issues associated with the “inevitable” delays in receiving government funding.

Progressive payments in which landholders received incremental funding as contract “milestones” were met, was seen as a compromise on both upfront and retrospective payments

In addition to these funding arrangements, the following suggestions were given:

landholders who had not spent all the money within 12 months, and did not have a “good enough reason” (i.e. adverse weather conditions prevented them from undertaking the work), should “have to give back any money not spent”

“don’t put regional NRM bodies in a situation where they were covering the last 25% of funding” to landholders, before they received the final payment from government, as they do not have the financial reserves to carry that burden

“Government should put 10% straight on the table (i.e. upfront)” to regional NRM bodies”, without waiting until their contracts have been finalised.

6.2.4 Improve data collection for reporting, auditing and long-term monitoring

There did not appear to be any consistent delivery of the Program across the different regions. Correspondingly, suggestions were made that more data needs to be collected from the regional NRM bodies, for immediate reporting requirements and auditing requirements, as well as longer-term monitoring and evaluation.

In particular, more information was requested about:

the exact breakdown of funding in each region – according to activities undertaken (e.g. on-ground works, workshops, labour, services, equipment, administration) and recipients funded (e.g. landholders, contractors, consultants);

the procurement process for consultants;

the proof required to make sure that funded activities were undertaken (e.g. receipts,

before and after photo points with spatial references); and

the acquittal process used (a couple of landholders told the researchers that they had not

yet spent all the money that they had received through the Program).

In addition, calls were made to:

instigate an auditing mechanism whereby five per cent of the works will be randomly inspected and non-compliers will be forced to pay back the money in full with interest;

implement a long term monitoring and evaluation program to test the effectiveness of the on-ground works and activities funded to contribute to long term resilience; and

93


conduct a cost benefit analysis to quantifiably assess the economic impacts of the Program.

6.3 Foster social activities and develop skills to support wellbeing

It is clear that the Program funded more than just on-ground outcomes for agricultural production and/or riparian restoration. In addition, the Program had a direct impact on the health and wellbeing of participating landholders as well as contributing to the broader economic and social recovery of their communities.

Nonetheless, there were concerns that there were not enough mental health support services for the general community, in the aftermath of Cyclone Oswald.

Correspondingly, the following suggestions were raised:

Work more closely with existing mental health services in the wake of a disaster;

Improve the skills and capacity of delivery organisations (such as regional NRM bodies) and direct contact roles (such as industry recovery officers) to promote general wellbeing, as well as recognise and refer at-risk individuals in the aftermath of a natural disaster (e.g. training through Lifeline’s Accidental Counsellor course, Mental Health First Aid course); and

Provide more social events for landholders to come together to share, debrief and support each other, in the aftermath of a natural disaster

6.4 Collaborate with related service providers and initiatives

The majority of the respondents in this study were satisfied with regional NRM bodies as the delivery agents of the Program. Nonetheless, there were several calls for more collaboration with related service providers and initiatives, in particular: the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority (QRAA); State government (especially the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries’ Flood Recovery Liaison Officers and Farm Financial Counsellors); the District Disaster Management Group (DDMG); agricultural industry groups (especially Queensland Farmer’s Federation through initiatives such as the Cyclone Oswald Industry Recovery Initiative); local government; and mental health service providers.

In addition, there was a call for more integration with other NRM programs (e.g. Reef, Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIP) and NRM plans) to undertake preventative activities to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, in particular floods.

6.5 Support natural disaster planning and knowledge of natural resource management for long term resilience

There were widespread calls for greater planning and knowledge of natural resource management, both catchment-wide and at the property scale, to support long term resilience to natural disasters. Similarly, there were pleas not to treat Cyclone Oswald (and the Program) as a once-off event, but rather, as part of a continuum of natural events, that could increase in frequency, in the future.

Related suggestions included:

94


Encourage the inclusion of disaster resilience planning into local government planning schemes (e.g. building in a flood plain);

Invest in more modelling of potential flooding scenarios in the aftermath of a cyclone;

Facilitate the earlier and wider dissemination of relevant technical information – in particular information related to soil conservation and riparian restoration activities. For some activities there appeared to be insufficient information available through the internet (e.g. the construction of contour banks). However, it was thought that this information was available in text books and needed to be uploaded to the web, so that it is easily accessible by anyone who wants it;

Develop best practice guidelines for landscape repair and resilience;

Exchange information and learnings about on-ground works undertaken through workshops and demonstration sites. Some innovative works were undertaken through the Program, however there were limited opportunities for regions to share this type of information with each other, and with the government;

Create a pool of experts (regionally, state wide, nationally) that can be called upon to provide specialist advice in in the aftermath of a cyclone and subsequent flooding; and

Support training in specialist skills, for example in soil conservation, geomorphology and catchment hydrology processes; and

Reduce or streamline permit approvals for on-ground activities to improve future

resilience (e.g. stream bank restoration activities).

95


References

Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M., (2014), Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th Edition, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Miles, MB. and Huberman, AM., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

96

impacts and contributions of the ex-tropical cyclone oswald on … · 2016-05-24 · impacts and...

Documents