The evidence gap in landscape-scale restoration

The funding environment for landscape-scale restoration work is changing, and projects waiting for certainty before acting may wait a long time. That much was clear at the Catchment Communities Aotearoa (CCA) National Forum earlier in the month - in the panel discussions and in the corridors between them.

The picture on funding

Government funding for catchment groups and restoration programmes has always been time-limited. Rounds open and close. Programmes get reviewed, reporting requirements shift. Groups relying on central government ultimately for the majority of their funding know this better than anyone.

What was clear in the Forum is that the work to secure more stable, diversified funding for the sector is underway, but nothing is confirmed, nothing is imminent. Conversations are underway about alternatives but it's tough to build a budget today.

One group we work with came away from the Forum acknowledging they had spent the better part of a year assuming someone else would solve the funding question. They are now focused on what they can do themselves.

What funders actually want to see

Serious funders are going to ask questions before writing a cheque. What have you already achieved? What specifically are you going to do with this money? Where, exactly? And how will we know it worked? The answers can be hard to provide. The data infrastructure to prove impact, plan interventions, and report on outcomes hasn't always kept pace with the ambition.

The CCA has an active workstream focused on proving the return on investment of catchment group activity. Part of what it is uncovering is that the sector's evidence base - the ability to say clearly what has been done, where, and to what effect - needs to mature alongside the funding conversation. Groups that can demonstrate impact are better placed with any funder - not just MPI.

The proof problem starts with a baseline

You cannot prove progress if you do not know where you started. A group that can tell a funder "we have 4,200 hectares of highly erodible land across our catchment, of which 380 hectares has been identified as priority for retirement and planting, and here is exactly where it is" is telling a fundamentally different story than a group that says "we work with farmers on erosion-prone land."

Both might be doing equally good work on the ground. But one of them is giving a funder an easier yes.

A baseline solves this - a mapped, documented picture of what land exists, how it is used, where the opportunities are, and what a funded intervention would actually change.

One of the collectives we work with said it would put them miles ahead of other groups in their next funding application - proof of what they plan to do, where, and what it will cost, rather than just the intention to do it. That is the difference between a compelling application and a hopeful one.

Planning for what comes next

A baseline is the starting point. What comes after it is a plan - and a plan that can survive scrutiny. Turning a baseline into a funded plan - knowing which land to prioritise and what outcomes to promise - is where most projects carry the most uncertainty.

CarbonCrop's land use transitions opportunities analysis is built for exactly this. It maps where trees could go across a property or catchment, identifies the relevant land characteristics, and shows what different planting scenarios could achieve. For a project lead putting together a funding case, that kind of analysis turns "we want to plant trees on erosion-prone land" into "here are the 14 properties, here are the specific areas, here is what we expect to achieve."

It also means that as the work happens, there is a record. Reporting is a live picture of what has changed against what was planned, rather than a retrospective scramble.

In our experience, this is what credibility looks like to a funder. A documented baseline, a credible plan, and the systems to show it is being delivered.

Getting ahead of the funding conversation

The funding environment for landscape-scale restoration in New Zealand is going to look different in five years than it does today. Which groups will be thriving in that environment is not yet clear. But the ones doing the groundwork now - building their evidence base, sharpening their plans, raising the bar on how they report and communicate their impact - are giving themselves the best chance of being part of it.