6 ms·

I was a member of the ICE-SAR for some years (left due to my inability to be active and stay up on things during my university years). Everyone, excluding a ver

I was a member of the ICE-SAR for some years (left due to my inability to be active and stay up on things during my university years). Everyone, excluding a very small group of administrative and specially trained personal, take part in ICE-SAR as volunteers. There is no pay, but you do get access to some fantastic company of people, specialized equipment and training. So it is completely worth it if you enjoy any kind of out door activity, and don't mind lending a hand when people need help (most see this as normal community service). And most, if not all, members in ICE-SAR would agree that the service should be free for whom ever needs the help (for obvious reasons). However, the issue is that up until a few years back Iceland didn't have such insane influx of tourists every year (estimates for 2015 are ~1.2 million foreign nationals. That's more than 4x the total population of the country!) and the amount of calls ICE-SAR got due to tourists where manageable (there is equipment costs, fuel and then being able to leave the office to go glacial trekking for lost souls). But now the amount of calls seem (from what I hear from friends still active) to have completely caught everyone off guard. And since we don't have an army and the police force is small and mostly tied to each town/city, there are no other alternatives than ICE-SAR. And having such a strong tradition of the government/police being able to rely on the volunteer network, it is difficult to suggest a change where someone starts paying for the work. And what most people suggest is that the government starts paying more for the use of the ICE-SAR service (or support it with more funds), since all emergency calls are directed to the state run 911-esque help line that then decides if a search & rescue operation should be initiated. But you can imagine how difficult it is to start charging for something that up to this point has been free. Just as an extra note: Currently ICE-SAR gets most of it's funds through the sales of fireworks and xmas trees (fireworks are illegal to shoot up in Iceland except during xmas holidays, ~15 Dec-10 Jan) and sales of a small key chain mascot.

throwaway7767 10y ago
Great comment. Regarding the possibility of charging for the work, I'll add that there's also concern about keeping volunteers on. You're spot on that people volunteer for the company and access to fun equipment, but for many there's also the element of being a 'heroic volunteer'. Once you start charging for escorting tourists who stubbed their toes, some of that glitz is gone. Additionally, I've heard concerns from volunteers that if it's a paid service, the expectations change. Now, the volunteers can say 'no' if asked to do something they don't want to do. If it's a service that's charged for (even if it's the government putting in direct funding), the dynamics of the relationship change. If adding government money to the mix results in fewer volunteers, it's likely that the cost of the operation would go up instead of down, as they'd need to add paid rescuers. As an aside, this is similar to the issues the Tor Project has been discussing for a while. There are proposals to economically incentivize people to run exit relays. But right now, most exit relays are run at a loss to volunteers, and it's unlikely that such a scheme could actually pay for the entire cost of the infrastructure required. So what happens if you start paying, but less than the cost? It stops being altruistic, and becomes an economic calculation that does not make sense. It's likely that you'd lose a lot of the idealistic relay operators, which are exactly the ones you want to keep.

throwaway7767 10y ago

Great comment. Regarding the possibility of charging for the work, I'll add that there's also concern about keeping volunteers on. You're spot on that people volunteer for the company and access to fun equipment, but for many there's also the element of being a 'heroic volunteer'. Once you start charging for escorting tourists who stubbed their toes, some of that glitz is gone. Additionally, I've heard concerns from volunteers that if it's a paid service, the expectations change. Now, the volunteers can say 'no' if asked to do something they don't want to do. If it's a service that's charged for (even if it's the government putting in direct funding), the dynamics of the relationship change. If adding government money to the mix results in fewer volunteers, it's likely that the cost of the operation would go up instead of down, as they'd need to add paid rescuers. As an aside, this is similar to the issues the Tor Project has been discussing for a while. There are proposals to economically incentivize people to run exit relays. But right now, most exit relays are run at a loss to volunteers, and it's unlikely that such a scheme could actually pay for the entire cost of the infrastructure required. So what happens if you start paying, but less than the cost? It stops being altruistic, and becomes an economic calculation that does not make sense. It's likely that you'd lose a lot of the idealistic relay operators, which are exactly the ones you want to keep.