Applying to the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change programme

Types of SLMACC Projects

The 2022 SLMACC funding round had 2 funding pathways – grants and collaboration.

The criteria relating to the amount of funding being sought and the length of time required to complete a project were guidelines only. For example, a grant seeking $270,000 for an 18-month project would not have been automatically disqualified.

Grants pathway

The grants pathway supported shorter projects with a lower level of complexity. Applications in 2022 were a single-step process, as in prior funding years.

• Co-design was optional.
• Work programme was to be relatively straightforward (for example, one workstream, milestone-based).
• Could generally be completed within one year.
• Required less funding (up to $250,000 in total).

Collaboration pathway

The collaboration pathway was for longer-term projects co-designed by 2 or more applicant groups. Projects must have shown co-development between researchers from various organisations and disciplines. It could also have been between researchers and end-users to achieve outcomes that continued beyond the life of the project.

• Must have evidenced co-design.
• Typically, were to have a higher level of complexity than a grant (for example, 2 or more interdependent work streams).
• To take 2 to 5 years to complete.
• Required more funding (for example, up to $300,000 per year).

Due to the additional time required to develop collaborative projects, 2022 collaboration pathway applications were a 2-step process:

1. Collaboration applicants submitted a brief concept paper.
2. Applications may then have been invited to submit a full proposal.

What grant applications or collaboration concepts were to include

Both grant applications and collaboration concepts were to:

• reflect the priorities in the 2022 SLMACC priorities paper and the principals and thematic areas identified in the SLMACC investment plan 2022-2027
• identify the project’s benefits and outcomes, and describe how these will be measured
• clearly describe the scientific methodology of the proposed work
• consider Māori aspirations and opportunities, where applicable.

The relevant application form had guidance on how much information to provide.

Collaboration concepts were to also outline co-development undertaken to date and explain what further co-development would be done at the full proposal stage. 

Grant applications also had to:

• describe how the project would be successfully delivered, including a plan for extension of research
• include a realistic and appropriate budget (with a breakdown including milestones, consideration of any subcontracting required, cost of open access journal publication where applicable, and the budget for each stage of the work)
• consider key risks.

Assessment criteria

Applications were assessed against 6 criteria to decide whether they qualified for funding, and how much they might receive.

1. Impact: Assuming this project is successful, what will this project achieve? We looked for:

• specific, measurable, and achievable objectives
• robust extension and communication activities
• evidence of collaboration.

2. Alignment to fund objectives and wider government goals: How would the project deliver helping the primary industries use land more sustainably, meet environmental targets, and remain prosperous? We looked for alignment to:

• fund priorities and outcomes and impacts
• Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) outcomes, and broader government and sector goals.

3. Science excellence: Would the research demonstrate scientific excellence and build or retain capabilities for the benefit of New Zealand? To assess science capability, we looked at:

• new knowledge the project will generate
• fit-for-purpose research methods and methodology.

4. Ability to deliver outcomes: Ability to deliver research and extension of the outputs. What was the likelihood the team would achieve their proposed research outputs and deliver effective extension? We looked at the:

• track record of the team, including experience with collaborations, extension, and driving uptake.
• project management and support
• project and extension plans.

5. Practicality: Risk management and success factors. Was the proposed outcome practical for farmer, policy, or decision support tool uptake? We looked at the:

• track record in delivering contributions to climate change goals
• plan to address any barriers to adoption (like ethical considerations, intellectual property, understanding of regulatory pathways)
• pathway to research use to achieve uptake and capture benefits.

6. Value for money: Outcome costs and benefits (economic, social, or environmental contribution to SLMACC programme goals). Assuming this project was successful, what was the value of the outcomes of the project? We looked for:

• assessment of the opportunity and potential impacts
• contribution to SLMACC programme goals, including likelihood of adoption and implementation
• realistic and appropriate budget
• co-benefits such as providing opportunities to increase capability in partner organisations.

We encouraged collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including but not limited to:

• local government
• Māori entities
• commercial entities
• industry groups
• farmers.

Applications were assessed by a panel made up of government and sector experts. Final decisions were made by MPI. All applicants were notified if their proposal was successful.

Applications were confidential. However, we may have shared your application with experts in MPI and other government departments to get their feedback.

Who to contact

If you have questions about applying to SLMACC, email funding@mpi.govt.nz