Tēnā koutou katoa.
My perspective today is from local and regional government, through Environment Canterbury, and through Te Uru Kahika, the regional and unitary council sector.
I’ll start with the blunt point. The future of catchment group funding will not look like the last few years. The period of large, time-limited central government stimulus is changing. There is still funding, but it will be more contested, more disciplined, and more focused on demonstrable delivery.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It means catchment groups need to be very clear about their purpose, their value, and the outcomes they help deliver.
From a council perspective, catchment groups matter because catchments are where the real work happens. Freshwater, biodiversity, erosion, flood resilience, mahinga kai, water quality and community resilience — none of it fits neatly into council boundaries or agency silos. It sits in landscapes, waterways and communities.
And councils already carry a lot of this. Across the regional sector there is about $43.5 million a year of direct operational investment in catchment freshwater and biodiversity work, and more than 420 full-time staff in land management and biodiversity roles.
In Canterbury, our investment is among the largest in the country: around $8 million a year, with more than two-thirds tagged to specific catchment programmes such as Hekeao Hinds and our braided rivers. That is not a one-off grant. It is recurring, rates-funded delivery. It predates the stimulus era and will outlast it.
But councils are under real pressure too. Rates affordability is real. Infrastructure, flood protection, freshwater, biosecurity and climate resilience all compete for the same ratepayer dollar.
So I would not encourage any catchment group to assume a single funder will carry them long term — not MPI, not MfE, not councils and not industry. Relying on one source is a risk.
The strongest groups will blend support from several places: central government, councils, landowners, industry, philanthropy, targeted rates where communities back them, and potentially nature or carbon markets where the integrity can be proven.
But funding follows confidence, and confidence follows delivery. For catchment groups, that means a few things.
Be clear on purpose. What is the issue that actually brings your community together — sediment, water quality, biodiversity, erosion, resilience or mahinga kai? Be specific.
Stick to your strengths. Your power is practical delivery and trust on the ground. Engage in policy and reform, but as evidence-based delivery partners, not partisan advocates. The moment you become a lobby group, you date with the politics.
Show your work. Maps, monitoring, hectares treated, kilometres fenced, wetlands restored and sediment reduced — make the value visible, because everyone in this room measures it differently.
Build genuine relationships with mana whenua. Mana whenua are not just another stakeholder. In many catchments, iwi, hapū and rūnanga hold enduring rights, responsibilities, mātauranga and intergenerational connections to water and place. Durable catchment work needs those relationships to be real.
And engage now in local government reform. The Simplifying Local Government process has put structural change on the table. Whatever emerges, catchment integrity must not be lost.
Talk to your mayors, councillors and chief executives about what has to be preserved: catchment-scale planning, regional science, land management capability, flood and hazard expertise, monitoring, and long-term community relationships.
My practical message is this. If catchment groups want long-term investment, they need to present as long-term delivery partners. Not bureaucratic — credible. Clear purpose, good relationships, practical delivery, evidence of impact.
Because the future funding case has to be made in plain terms: what problem are we solving, why does it matter, what will it cost, who benefits, who pays, and what will be different on the ground?
That is the conversation I think catchment groups need to lead.
I’ll leave it there and look forward to the discussion.
Questions and discussion
Question: You have talked about catchment groups avoiding being political, but also encouraged them to talk to mayors and territorial authorities during a political reform. How do they hold that balance?
It is a fair tension, and the line is clearer than it sounds. The distinction is between advocating for an outcome and advocating for a position.
Advocating for an outcome is legitimate, and it is grounded in your work: here is the catchment we are improving, here is the result, here is why it matters to this community, and here is what would help us keep going. That is not political. It is making your delivery visible to the people who make funding decisions.
Advocating for a position — backing a particular reform, opposing a structure or taking sides — is where you get into trouble. It burns relationships, it dates quickly, and the moment the politics shift you have lost credibility with whoever is left.
My practical suggestions are three. First, lead with evidence, not opinion. Bring the data, the photos and the local story, and let that do the talking.
Second, talk to everyone, not just the people you agree with. If you are only in one camp’s ear, you are a lobby group whether you mean to be or not.
Third, keep your message about the issue and the outcome, never about the personalities or the politics. Mayors and territorial authorities are dealing with a lot of noise right now, and they do not deal with catchment issues in the same way regional councils do.
The groups that cut through are the ones that turn up with a clear, non-partisan delivery story. That is how you stay relevant through reform without getting caught in it.
Question: You have encouraged groups to highlight delivery. What have you seen catchment groups do that you have found particularly effective?
The most effective groups do three things consistently.
First, they are clear on purpose. They know exactly what issue brings their members together — sediment, a particular waterway, erosion or a species — and they do not drift. That clarity makes everything else easier: it guides the work, and it makes the value obvious to an outsider.
Second, they make their results visible and local. The groups that land best are not the ones with the slickest reports. They are the ones who can show a before-and-after, name the landowners involved, and say: this is what changed on the ground.
Funders, councils and communities all respond to that because it is tangible. In Canterbury, the Hekeao Hinds programme is a useful example: a community that asked for a targeted rate to fund work it cared about, and could point to real outcomes.
Third, they work alongside the system rather than around it. The strongest groups partner with their council’s expertise — the science, mapping and technical advice — rather than trying to rebuild it themselves.
Thriving Southland is a good example: a large collective working with the regional council, not in competition with it. That is where the value compounds. Councils hold the relationship and technical depth; groups hold local trust and delivery; and together you get something neither could do alone.
The common thread is delivery you can see and trust you can bank. Get those two right and the funding conversation looks after itself.