01
Sector transformation projects
Larger programmes intended to change how a sector operates, ordinarily involving industry bodies and multiple participants rather than a single farm.
Guide
Public funding exists, and it is not a substitute.
Government support for the primary sector is real, it is more often co-investment than a grant, and it is designed to share the cost of something a business was going to do rather than to fund a business that cannot.
MS
Matt Stiles Editor
Published 8 September 2026 Last reviewed 8 September 2026 Read time 11 min
The short version
Five lines about public funding.
- Most of it is co-investment. The government contributes a share of a project the applicant is also funding, rather than paying for something outright.
- The applicant’s contribution is the point. It demonstrates commitment and shares the risk, and it is not a barrier the programme wishes it could remove.
- It supports projects rather than businesses. Programmes back a specific piece of work with defined outcomes, not the operating position of an applicant.
- It does not replace commercial finance. A business that cannot fund its share cannot use co-investment, which is the boundary worth understanding before applying.
- Indicative only. Programmes, criteria and funding rounds change. The Ministry for Primary Industries publishes what is currently available.
The shape of it
What co-investment actually means.
A co-investment programme funds a project rather than a business. The applicant proposes a specific piece of work with defined outcomes, commits its own funding to a share of it, and the government contributes the balance under an agreement with reporting obligations attached.
That structure is deliberate. Requiring the applicant to fund a share means the project has to be one the applicant genuinely believes in, and it means public money is going alongside private commitment rather than instead of it.
It also means the money arrives against milestones and reporting rather than as a lump sum at the start, which is a cash-flow consideration a business should plan for. Public funding does not remove the need to fund the project; it reduces the total the business has to carry.
The project
Defined, with outcomes
The applicant
Funds a share
The government
Funds a share
The obligation
Delivery and reporting
The boundary
Co-investment is not a source of funding for a business that cannot fund itself.
Because the applicant has to contribute a share, a business without the capacity to fund that share cannot use these programmes. That is the single most common misunderstanding about primary sector support, and it matters because a business under financial pressure sometimes looks to public funding as an alternative to a lender. It is not one. Where the pressure is genuine, the Farm Debt Mediation Scheme, rural support organisations and an early conversation with the lender are the relevant avenues, and each has its own page or source on this site.
What is generally supported
Four kinds of work public funding backs.
Described in general terms because specific programmes, criteria and rounds change. The Ministry for Primary Industries publishes what is currently open.
02
Environmental and catchment work
Riparian planting, water quality improvement, erosion control and related work, frequently delivered through catchment groups rather than individually.
03
Research, innovation and extension
Trialling new practice, technology or systems, with an expectation that the learning is shared rather than retained.
04
Adverse event response
Support following a declared adverse event, which is a different category with its own criteria and is ordinarily time-limited to the event.
Applying
What an application generally involves.
A defined project with stated outcomes, a budget showing the applicant’s contribution and what is being sought, a plan for delivery, and an account of how the outcomes will be measured and reported. Applications are assessed against published criteria and against other applications, so a clear, well-evidenced proposal competes better than an enthusiastic one.
The effort involved is not trivial and it is worth weighing against the funding sought. A modest amount of co-investment can absorb a considerable amount of time to apply for and to report on, and where a business is doing the work regardless, the honest question is whether the funding justifies the process.
Where it does, and particularly where a project involves several parties or a catchment group, public funding is genuinely useful and it changes what is possible. Working through an industry body or a catchment group is frequently easier than applying alone, because the group ordinarily has experience of the process.
Against commercial finance
What each is for.
They complement one another and neither substitutes for the other, which is the point of setting them side by side.
| Feature | Public co-investment | Commercial finance |
|---|---|---|
| Funds | A defined project | Whatever the business needs |
| Requires | The applicant’s own share | Servicing capacity and security |
| Repaid | Not, ordinarily | Yes |
| Obligations | Delivery and reporting | Repayment and covenants |
| Timing | Rounds and milestones | When arranged |
| Available to a business under pressure | No | Depends on the assessment |
The last row is the practical distinction. Commercial finance can sometimes be arranged by a business under pressure, on terms reflecting that. Co-investment cannot, because the applicant’s contribution is a precondition.
Using it well
Where public funding genuinely changes a plan.
The clearest case is work a business is willing to do and would struggle to justify alone. Environmental improvement across a catchment, trialling a system change, or contributing to a sector programme all fall into that category: worthwhile, uncertain in return, and easier to commit to when the cost is shared.
The second case is scale. A project that would be marginal for one business is frequently viable for several together, and public co-investment is designed around exactly that. Catchment groups and industry bodies exist partly for this reason.
What it does not do is make a poor project viable or a stretched business comfortable. The contribution requirement is the filter, and it works as intended.
Method
How this guide was written, and its limits.
This guide describes public sector support in general terms and deliberately names no specific programme, fund, round or criterion. Programmes open and close, criteria change, and a page listing what was available when it was written would be actively misleading to someone reading it a year later.
The Ministry for Primary Industries publishes what is currently open, what the criteria are and how to apply, and it is linked in the sources. That is the only reliable place to look.
Nothing here is advice about any particular application. This site is not an adviser on public funding, and where a project is being contemplated an industry body, a catchment group or the Ministry itself is a better starting point than a general page.
Making an application work
Four things that separate a strong proposal from a hopeful one.
Applications are assessed against published criteria and against each other, so clarity and evidence do more than enthusiasm.
01
A defined project with an end
Specific work, a start and a finish, and stated outcomes. A proposal describing an intention rather than a project is difficult to assess and difficult to report against later.
02
Measurable outcomes
What will be different, and how it will be shown. Programmes fund work that produces something demonstrable, and the measurement plan is part of the proposal rather than an afterthought.
03
A credible contribution
The applicant’s own funding, evidenced rather than asserted. It is the precondition of co-investment and it is where applications most often fall over.
04
The reporting the business can actually do
Obligations continue after the money arrives, and a business that cannot report will struggle with them. Being honest about capacity at the application stage is better than discovering it afterwards.
Working through a group
Why catchment groups and industry bodies apply more successfully.
A great deal of primary sector co-investment is designed around collective projects, and groups apply more successfully than individuals for reasons that have little to do with the merits of the work. They have done it before, they know how a proposal is read, and they have the administrative capacity to report.
They also fit the programmes better. Work with a catchment-scale or sector-scale benefit is exactly what public co-investment is intended for, and a single business proposing the same work at its own scale is proposing something with a narrower public benefit.
For a business with a project in mind, the practical first step is frequently to find out whether a group is already doing something similar. Joining an existing programme is considerably easier than starting an application, and the outcome for the business is frequently the same.
The cash-flow shape
How co-investment money actually arrives.
Funding is ordinarily paid against milestones and against evidence of spending rather than in advance, which means the business funds the work and is reimbursed for a share of it. That is a cash-flow position rather than a subsidy arriving up front.
For a modest project that is manageable. For a larger one it means the business needs the full project funding available even though it will ultimately carry only part of the cost, and a facility sized on the net figure will be short throughout.
That is worth building into the plan rather than discovering. A project co-funded at a meaningful share still requires the whole amount to be available as it is spent, and the reimbursement arrives afterwards on the programme’s timetable rather than the business’s.
Adverse events
A different category with different rules.
Support following a declared adverse event, whether a drought, a flood or a biosecurity incursion, sits apart from ordinary co-investment. It is time-limited to the event, its criteria are specific to it, and it is ordinarily administered quickly rather than through a funding round.
What is available varies by event and by declaration, and it changes. The Ministry for Primary Industries publishes what applies to a current event, and rural support organisations in an affected region ordinarily know it before anyone else does.
For a business affected by an event, both are worth contacting early. Support of this kind is frequently time-limited, and a business that finds out about it after a window has closed has lost something it was entitled to for no reason other than not knowing.
The trade
What co-investment gives and asks.
What it gives
- A share of a project cost that does not have to be repaid
- Access to work a single business could not justify alone
- Association with a programme that frequently brings expertise as well as money
- A route into collective projects at catchment or sector scale
- Support following a declared adverse event, where one applies
What it asks
- The applicant’s own funding, evidenced rather than asserted
- A defined project with measurable outcomes rather than an intention
- Reporting obligations that continue after the money arrives
- Cash flow to fund the whole project while a share is reimbursed
- Time to apply, which on a modest amount can outweigh the benefit
A realistic sequence
Three steps before an application is worth starting.
01
Find out what is actually open
Programmes open and close and criteria change, so the first step is establishing what currently exists rather than what existed when somebody last looked. The Ministry for Primary Industries publishes it, and the answer takes an afternoon to establish.
02
Check whether a group is already doing it
A catchment group, an industry body or a sector programme may already be running work the business wants to do. Joining an existing programme is considerably easier than starting an application and the outcome for the business is frequently the same.
03
Weigh the effort against the amount
Applying and reporting take real time, and on a modest amount that can outweigh the funding. A business doing the work regardless should be honest about whether the co-investment justifies the process rather than applying because the funding exists.
What the money brings besides money
The part that is easy to overlook.
Programmes frequently connect a project to expertise, data and other participants doing similar work, and for several kinds of project that is worth as much as the funding. A trial run in isolation produces a result for one business; the same trial inside a programme produces a result that is measured, compared and shared.
It also produces a network. Businesses that have been through a programme know how the process works, what the reporting involves and what the assessors are looking for, and that knowledge is available to the next applicant simply by asking.
For a business considering a project with an uncertain outcome, that is arguably the stronger argument. The money reduces the cost of finding out; the programme improves the chance the answer is useful.
Where applications come unstuck
Three reasons a proposal does not succeed.
None of these is about the merit of the work, which is what makes them worth knowing in advance.
The contribution cannot be evidenced
The applicant’s share is asserted rather than shown, or it depends on funding that has not been arranged. Assessors read that as a project without a funded plan.
What happens:An application declined on a precondition rather than on the work, which is entirely avoidable by arranging the contribution first.
The outcomes are not measurable
The proposal describes an intention rather than a result, so there is nothing to report against and nothing to assess it on.
What happens:A proposal that cannot be compared with others in the round, however good the underlying idea is.
The reporting capacity is not there
The project is funded and the business cannot meet the reporting obligations that come with it, which surfaces months later.
What happens:A strained relationship with the programme and a genuine risk to the remaining funding, from an obligation nobody weighed at the application stage.
All three are addressed before applying rather than during. Arranging the contribution, defining measurable outcomes and being honest about reporting capacity is an afternoon of work that decides most of the outcome.
The other side
What the applicant’s share costs to fund.
Co-investment reduces the total a business carries and does not remove it. This is the cost of funding the applicant’s contribution. Indicative only, and not a quote or offer of credit.
Indicative repayment
Weekly
$1,437/week
$6,228 /month $73,650 total interest
$300,000
$5,000 $500,000
5 years
6 months 5 years
9.00% p.a.
8% (secured) 30% (unsecured)
Indicative only. Not a quote or offer of credit. Actual rates, fees, and repayments depend on the business profile and the lender's decision.
Sending to Prospa
Your $300,000 scenario
5 years at 9.00% . Prospa will ask a few quick questions, then provide a firm quote and funding if eligible.
Redirecting…
References
Sources
- Ministry for Primary Industries, funding and programmes
The authoritative source for what New Zealand primary sector funding is currently available and how to apply.
- Ministry for the Environment
The source for freshwater and catchment programmes that intersect with primary sector funding.
- Rural Support Trust
Free and confidential regional support, which is the relevant avenue where a business is under financial pressure.
- New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Context for export-facing support available to primary sector businesses.
- Farm Debt Mediation Act 2019
Referenced for the point that a business under financial pressure has a different set of avenues available.
FAQ
Questions, answered
Is New Zealand primary sector funding mostly grants?
Mostly co-investment rather than grants. The government contributes a share of a project the applicant is also funding, which is a different proposition from paying for something outright.
Why is an applicant contribution required?
Because it demonstrates commitment and shares the risk, and it means public money goes alongside private investment rather than instead of it. It is the design of the programmes rather than an obstacle within them.
Can a business under financial pressure use co-investment?
Ordinarily not, because it cannot fund its share. Where pressure is genuine, the Farm Debt Mediation Scheme, rural support organisations and an early conversation with the lender are the relevant avenues.
What kinds of work are supported?
In general terms, sector transformation projects, environmental and catchment work, research and extension, and support following declared adverse events. Specific programmes and criteria change and are published by the Ministry.
Does funding arrive up front?
Ordinarily against milestones and reporting rather than as a lump sum at the start, which is a cash-flow consideration worth planning for. The project still has to be funded as it happens.
Is applying worth the effort?
It depends on the amount sought against the work involved in applying and reporting. A modest amount can absorb a considerable amount of time, and where the work is happening regardless the honest question is whether the funding justifies the process.
Is it easier to apply through a group?
Frequently. Catchment groups and industry bodies ordinarily have experience of the process, and projects involving several parties are precisely what co-investment programmes are designed around.
Does co-investment replace a bank facility?
No. It reduces the total a business has to carry on a specific project and does not remove the need for finance, and the two are complements rather than alternatives.
What obligations come with it?
Delivery of the project as proposed, measurement of the outcomes and reporting against them, under an agreement. Those obligations are real and they continue after the money has arrived.
Why does this guide not name programmes?
Because programmes open and close and criteria change, so a page listing what was available when it was written would mislead someone reading it a year later. The Ministry publishes what is currently open.
Where should a business start?
The Ministry for Primary Industries for what is available, and an industry body or catchment group for how the process actually works. Both are better starting points than a general page.
Is this guide advice about an application?
No. It describes the general shape of public funding. This site is not an adviser on public funding, and any particular application should start with the Ministry or with a body experienced in the process.
Related
Keep reading
The Farm Debt Mediation Scheme
The avenue where a business is under pressure.
Read onIrrigation finance
Where public and commercial funding sometimes meet.
Read onForestry
A sector where public programmes have been significant.
Read onHow NZ rural lending works
The commercial side of a capital plan.
Read onAll eight kinds of finance
Every rural facility compared in the same shape.
Read on