Professor Ann Brower, environmental geographer, University of Canterbury, is available for comment: “The implementation strategy is much more focused on talk than on action, which is surprising for an implementation document. There’s a big emphasis on data gathering, and no mention on wilding pine control, for example. “Jobs for Nature, an action-oriented programme, is hailed as a success, yet there is no mention of bringing it back to life after its demise a couple of years ago.

Jobs for Nature is a great example of an action led programme more focused on physically controlling wilding pines, for example, than on talking about, theorising, or gathering data about wilding pines. Yet Jobs for Nature is gone, and we are back to talking about, theorising, and gathering data on the problems instead of cracking on and solving them. “I am also surprised to see no role for Regional Councils in the implementation of a biodiversity strategy.

Given that a majority of our biodiversity is found on private land, not DOC or LINZ land, I would expect to see a large role for Councils. “I am more alarmed than surprised to see the focus on ‘nature credits’ in the biodiversity strategy. Research has found biodiversity credits to be better for development than biodiversity.

Walker et al found policies like nature credits to sound lofty but accomplish little in part because they the standards they set are “obscure enough to please all parties, vague enough to be unenforcable, and so ill-defined that failures to [protect biodiversity] will be difficult to detect and impossible to litigate.”” Conflict of interest statement: The expert has declared they have no conflict of interest. Dr Marie Doole, Independent researcher and consultant, Director of Mataki Environmental, comments: “It is good to see the second plan released to support the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. As with the first, there are a great many actors and actions identified that need to be progressed – but it is unclear however what funding or support there is for many of them and what buy-in there is outside the Department for the task list.

“The ambition in the goals of the strategy seems unmet by the sometimes pedestrian suite of actions in the plan (a fact also pointed out when the first plan was released). Efforts are of course tireless with what resources there are across DOC, regional councils, iwi and hapū, eco-sanctuaries and other community-led initiatives, and wins at place have been numerous and laudable – but scant funding and limited coordination makes it hard to maintain those gains. “Further, I have been concerned for some time that community conservation lacks institutional recognition despite the plethora of community and private led conservation efforts across the motu.

This plan reflects the same muted recognition we saw in the last one. A very much more collaborative approach is needed for this implementation plan, that compels and supports collective action. An uncoordinated space makes for a tough fight against an overwhelming opponent – an economy that favours extraction over protecting the public interest in a healthy environment.

“Without more transformational solutions that seek to align incentives in favour of nature, we will continue to document incremental improvements at place, cancelled out by reckless resource extraction and consumption overall.” Conflict of interest statement: “Marie regularly works in research and advisory work on biodiversity conservation including for NGOs and all levels of government and has recently been appointed to Te Rōpū Mahi Nui (one of the advisory groups to support the Predator Free 2050 initiative)” Manu Caddie, Adjunct Research Fellow, Te Kotahi Research Institute, University of Waikato, comments: “The “Action for Nature” plan demonstrates commitment to Te Mana o te Taiao through Action F’s focus on removing barriers to Māori leadership. Our concern is that while recognition of mātauranga Māori alongside science, including iwi/hapū-led initiatives, and acknowledgment that “traditional knowledge systems, place-based wisdom, values and practices” are supposedly central, the rhetoric rarely matches reality and resourcing.

The funding mechanisms proposed will hopefully accelerate existing restoration work and create meaningful employment pathways, but we’re not optimistic. “Critical questions remain about implementation gaps. DOC remains the lead agency for many critical actions, leaving Māori decision-making authority unclear, this is a concern for iwi and hapū. More concerning, the plan’s targets appear insufficient to meet New Zeala